Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469897 --- Comment #4 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-24 09:23:20 EDT --- So here are my final findings after having a thorough look onto the package and the spec: [+] rpmlint output is OK swingx.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/swingx can be ignored because it actually is set as %config in the spec file [+] package is named correctly [+] matches upstream source md5 [-] meets the packaging guidelines: BuildRoot tag is not correct as it does not include %{release}: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [+] License in SPEC matches actual license and is acceptable for Fedora [+] If license is included it should be in %doc [+] successfully compiles in mock [+] build dependencies are in BuildRequires [+] file permissions are correct [+] javadoc Subpackage exists One note on style: You switch between ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install which is not considered to be good style I believe. But actually this is not an issue. After you fixed that tiny issues I'll most likely approve your package :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review