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