[Bug 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516343


Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #26 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli at gmail.com>  2009-11-10 10:44:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> > NOTES:
> > For -javadoc subpackage, you dont want a versioned dir and an unversioned link
> > pointing to that. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#ant_2 ).
> > 
> > With that fixed, i will approve the package.  
> 
> Are you sure about this? I ask because during the review of gettext-commons
> (#515136) the reviewer required me to do so. I'm a newbie at Java packaging and
> I'm really confused now.  

I could not find any reference about that convention in the guidelines, not
even in the old jpackage guidelines which only ask (it's "shall", not "must")
to symlink unversioned jars to versioned ones. Maybe there were talks about it
in the -packaging list, however I can confirm that most java packages installed
in my system adhere to that convention; the ant and maven specfile templates
found in the wiki should be updated though.
That said, package is APPROVED, as it is.

-- 
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.