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=475018 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-16 13:36:56 EDT --- Before I can review this package: - For svn based tarball, please follow * For creating source tarball https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control * For versioning https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages For this package the EVR should be 2.0.1-0.2.svn35%{?dist} (as 2.0.1 does not seem to be released yet) - As far as I checked the codes, the license tag should be "GPL+" (no version specified) - Can this package be built by using maven? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven Note that I am not familiar with maven. - For %setup, would you modify your tarball so that the tarball expands codes under the directory of which the name contains %{name}? - Would you explain why %{name} binary rpm itself is not created? - Please consider to use build-classpath. -- 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