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=501383 --- Comment #5 from Rich Megginson <[email protected]> 2009-07-14 19:44:45 EDT --- To anticipate similar comments made for review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389-admin-console Checked the copyrights - looks like the source files were already correctly GPLv2 licensed (not GPLv2+ as the admin console files were). > - Why you put the jar files into %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java? The way the console works is that it dynamically downloads (and caches) the jar file corresponding to the server version you are managing. This allows you to use the console to manage older and compatible newer versions of directory server and admin server. The location %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java is where the admin server looks for the jar files when a request is made to download them to the console machine. The files under %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java are not used directly - they are downloaded to $HOME/.fedora-idm-console (or now $HOME/.389-console) where they are loaded into the console. > - Because the manual seems to be very large, a separate doc > subpackage make sense Done. Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-ds-console.spec SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-ds-console-1.2.0-3.src.rpm -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
