[Bug 475018] Review Request: xtvd - A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org

[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=475018





--- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys <sm at sandro-mathys.ch>  2008-12-18 16:51:53 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd-2.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd.spec

Actually, I don't think the pre-release/snapshot guidelines or the ones for
using revision control apply here.

2.0.1 is an official release (actually the same as 2.0(.0) but with additional
license text in the lib part as I requested from upstream). Because of only
this little change no tarball was created by upstream. But the used tarball is
generated by upstream's system and consists of the release tag (not a certain
revision or trunk or something).

The license was changed.

Yes, it could be built with maven. Actually, maven needs artifacts that are not
provided in Fedora. And packaging
other java software that could be built using maven also shows that maven is
Fedora lacks lots of important artifacts and that maven is really outdated. And
I really don't understand maven enough to change any of this.

Yes, I could modify the tarball but isn't it part of the guidelines that the
upstream's distribution shouldn't be modified unless there's some problems with
the contents?

Well, xtvd-lib and xtvd-gui are upstream's naming, which should be preserved
according to the guidelines. The common name (and the name of upstream's
distribution) is xtvd. That's why.

build-classpath is now being used.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any point :)

-- 
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.