[Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: adaptx


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-10 08:38 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> MUST:
> X rpmlint on adaptx srpm gives no output
> 
> W: adaptx invalid-license Exolab Software License
> 
> I've emailed fedora-maintainers about this.  It looks like it'll be okay but I
> want to confirm first.

According to this:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00367.html

we should just mark it as BSD.

So we have remaining:

> X package meets packaging guidelines.
> 
> . BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
> 
> it should be:
> 
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> 
> . do we need section free?  I think it can safely be removed.
> . can the Summary be expanded a bit?
> . the commented-out build-classpath line can probably be removed.  was the
> dependency on js removed?
> . are the two patches still necessary?

> X source files match upstream
> . I assume upstream doesn't provide source drops?  The svn export is fine in
> this case (please use an SVN tag), but can you put exact instructions for how to
> generate the tarball?  Preferably something that can be duplicated by just
> removing leading #'s.  I'd also like to see the comment be before the Source
> entry but that's just personal preference :)  Also, I don't think the RHCLEAN is
> necessary because I think we can re-distribute what binary jars they include
> upstream.  As long as we symlink to our built ones, it should be fine.  

> Do we need a java dependency somewhere?  How about a Requires on the things we
> BR like log4j?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.