[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||reflections-0.9.9-3.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-09 04:38:37 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reflections-0.9.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reflections-0.9.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #12) Issues: === - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'. Try: find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -delete contains a simple jar used only for test, if i remove this one so i should skip also the test suite - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) test suite is already executed, with maven no need to run it in %check - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github this project do not provides again a tarball with the characteristics that request. and you can cosider this version as stable release. (latest unstable is 0.10-SNAPSHOT) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Please note that the Packaging Source URL GL also means you need to apply the pre-release part of the Naming GL. I cannot see any release (or tag) in the github repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #15 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-2.fc20.src.rpm - remove bundled jar (used only for testing) Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9119341 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com Docs Contact||leamas.a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact|leamas.a...@gmail.com | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Issues: === - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'. Try: find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -delete - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Github -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: reflections Short Description: Java run-time meta-data analysis Upstream URL: https://github.com/ronmamo/reflections Owners: gil sbonazzo Branches: f22 epel7 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574
--- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/mk/tmp/harctoolbox/834574-reflections/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
reflections-javadoc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- sbonazzo is not in the Packager group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #16) (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14) - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) test suite is already executed, with maven no need to run it in %check Since the test suite won't run, please make a note in the spec. that jar was removed, but test suite is still being executed in %build section because is a maven style build and comment is superflous - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github this project do not provides again a tarball with the characteristics that request. and you can cosider this version as stable release. (latest unstable is 0.10-SNAPSHOT) I don't really follow you here. The version mgmt is in the pom.xml. But without both a tarball and a tag, there is no way to get an exact version of the code which corresponds to the pom.xml version. Which means that the only thing identifying the source is the commit hash. The GL I referred to describes how to package a github source url for a specific git hash. In short, they apply. Question then becomes how to apply them. There is some text on how to set the version field. Since you have the version in the sources, you can use that as Version:, applying the overall GL. So, again, the GL applies using the pom.xml version as Version: Bottom line: please apply the Packaging Source URL (github) GL. The root of this mess is the poorly managed upstream. What's missing is a git tag for each release. It would make a lot of sense of you filed this as an upstream issue. If you could get them to tag 0.9.9 everything would become so much clearer. Tagging releases is a well established best practise. Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-3.fc20.src.rpm - fix url taraball -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: reflections Short Description: Java run-time meta-data analysis Upstream URL: https://github.com/ronmamo/reflections Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14) - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in %check (or put a motivation in spec why not) test suite is already executed, with maven no need to run it in %check Since the test suite won't run, please make a note in the spec. - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust to follow these GL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Github this project do not provides again a tarball with the characteristics that request. and you can cosider this version as stable release. (latest unstable is 0.10-SNAPSHOT) I don't really follow you here. The version mgmt is in the pom.xml. But without both a tarball and a tag, there is no way to get an exact version of the code which corresponds to the pom.xml version. Which means that the only thing identifying the source is the commit hash. The GL I referred to describes how to package a github source url for a specific git hash. In short, they apply. Question then becomes how to apply them. There is some text on how to set the version field. Since you have the version in the sources, you can use that as Version:, applying the overall GL. So, again, the GL applies using the pom.xml version as Version: Bottom line: please apply the Packaging Source URL (github) GL. The root of this mess is the poorly managed upstream. What's missing is a git tag for each release. It would make a lot of sense of you filed this as an upstream issue. If you could get them to tag 0.9.9 everything would become so much clearer. Tagging releases is a well established best practise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Looks good. *** Approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #23 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reflections-0.9.9-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/reflections-0.9.9-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC||sbona...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1197132 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1168605 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168605 [Bug 1168605] [RFE] change ovirt-engine packaging to adhere to fedora java packaging guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Sandro Bonazzola sbona...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-1.fc20.src.rpm - update to 0.9.9 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9094432 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #6) Incorrect license tag, should be WTFPL. Besides that looks OK to me. I'll approve if you fix licensing. Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-0.2.RC1.fc19.src.rpm - fix license tag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I'm getting HTTP 404 when trying to download SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #8) I'm getting HTTP 404 when trying to download SRPM. Sorry Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-0.2.RC1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mizde...@redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Incorrect license tag, should be WTFPL. Besides that looks OK to me. I'll approve if you fix licensing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-0.1.RC1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i ||t) --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu --- Build fails. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WKvibz11aoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- yes i know, need maven-local instead of maven as buildrequires thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5G8W7z9Uuva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-0.1.RC1.fc16.src.rpm - update to 0.9.9-RC1 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5468378 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lM1ZhO0hqGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||848096 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4188033 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
