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|pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 16:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > 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) Fixed. > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist} Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > license is not marked with %doc There's no license text included in the zip. > * 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 Got rid of these. > * 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 Fixed. > * 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 It has no doc in the main package > W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit-demo no-documentation No docs in demo either. > 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 Fixed javadoc stuff > 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 > Don't know if there's anything that we can do about this. I've added a Requires: javadoc for doc subpackage. > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 Built fine. > * package should build in mock > spec file and srpm are available at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/222/httpunit.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/223/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- 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