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=444512 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-03 00:18:16 EDT --- The review arrived finally. Nothing serious, just few small things: * First you should close bug #444511 * This package is only for F-10+, right? * To simplify the code, you can use %define install_loc %{_datadir}/eclipse/dropins/eclemma and update everything accordingly. This is a suggestion, not a requirement. * You are now not owning the directory %{install_loc}/eclemma With the above suggestion you can just use %{install_loc} in the files section. * rpmlint says: eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: no-documentation Please add those about.html files (rename them), and at least the license.html and faq.html files to %doc eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar /usr/share/java/emma.jar This can be ignored. eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/emma.jar /usr/share/java/emma.jar This should be fixed. eclipse-eclemma.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/eclemma/eclipse/plugins/com.mountainminds.eclemma.core_1.3.2/.options Is this file required? eclipse-eclemma.src: W: strange-permission get-eclemma.sh 0775 Please use 644 for source files. * The file ./com.mountainminds.eclemma.core/emma.jar needs to be removed in the %prep * The license file says: "The user documentation contains example code taken from the Apache Jakarta Commons project, provided under the terms and conditions of the Apache License Version 2.0. " Shall we include ASL 2.0 in the license tag? * Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . You are using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at certain points and %{buildroot} on others. You should stay consistent. -- 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