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=521069 Andrew Overholt <overh...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |overh...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |overh...@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt <overh...@redhat.com> 2009-09-03 10:34:59 EDT --- Only issue: line 42 is too long :) - md5sums match upstream - licensing fine - builds and installs fine - macros sane - naming good - files okay - rpmlint clean (maven warning is okay): $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/felix-osgi-obr-1.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-obr-1.0.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-obr-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm felix-osgi-obr.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/felix-osgi-obr 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. As I said in bug #521067, it may be best to coordinate with the JPackage folks to split their monolithic felix package like you've done so that there aren't file conflicts. At the moment, since Fedora doesn't explicitly support JPackage compatibility, this is probably okay. Longer term, it'd be nice to interoperate. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
