Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx |pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-12 14:00 EST ------- MUST: X specfile should be %{name}.spec X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X change license to ASL X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - %doc not used X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d X Vendor tag should not be used X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period. X make sure lines are <= 80 characters X manual subpackage should be renamed doc X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package - should just be moved outside comment X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-demo no-documentation W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build in mock -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review