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=472683 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Dignan <dignan.patr...@gmail.com> 2009-01-06 16:42:49 EDT --- Ok, updated the package. - I tested it in mock for fedora-devel-i386, and it works fine now, I hadn't set the location for jni.h properly for the libjpcap.so to build. - I had those set because I saw it in an example, but it seems quite useless in retrospect, since I can just use %name and %version - Fixed the licensing issue - Changed to full upstream URL - Removed the Vendor item - Added jpackage-utils to both BuildRequires and Requires - Removed libpcap as a BuildRequire - I used "Autoreq: 0" because upstream had done so in their RPM spec file (which was nowhere near current Fedora spec) - Added an rm -f statement to the %prep which removes the jarfiles and .so pre-built in the upstream tarball - Changed to %defattr(-,root,root,-) - Now uses install -D which should fix the permissions I uploaded new versions here: Spec File: http://users.wpi.edu/~dignan/jpcap.spec Source RPM: http://users.wpi.edu/~dignan/jpcap-0.7-4.fc10.src.rpm The originals are now moved to http://users.wpi.edu/~dignan/archive/0.7-3/jpcap.spec and http://users.wpi.edu/~dignan/archive/0.7-3/jpcap-0.7-3.fc10.src.rpm Thank you for the review, I look forward to your forthcoming comments. -- 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 Fedorafirstname.lastname@example.org http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review