[Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059


pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx  2007-02-14 14:44 EST -------
X indicates issues needed fixing.
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name - ok
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec - ok
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something) - ok
 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
 - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
   not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name - ok
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? yes- MIT
 - OSI-approved
 - not a kernel module
 - not shareware
 - is it covered by patents?
 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 - no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license. - ok
* license is open source-compatible. - ok
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name} - ok
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - ok
 - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
   how to generate the the source drop; ie.
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist}
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
license is not marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing
But this can be ignored.
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
* Packager tag should not be used
X Vendor tag should not be used
X Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
 - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch:      noarch
 - please fix the javadoc symlink
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   bash
   bzip2
   coreutils
   cpio
   diffutils
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
   gcc
   gcc-c++
   gzip
   make
   patch
   perl
   redhat-rpm-config
   rpm-build
   sed
   tar
   unzip
   which
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
line 127 is longer than 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit no-documentation
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-demo no-documentation
W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok
W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api
/usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
 
 
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* 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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]