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 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227075, 227113 ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-15 11:33 EST ------- Almost there: Xs are the only things that need doing MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X source and patches verified * md5sums match . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are necessary and/or what they do * skim the summary and description fine * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly X license text included in package and marked with %doc . there's no license text included in the zip * packages meet FHS X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing -> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * -doc sub-package is fine * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package? * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * no locale data * cp -p used * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . can't do until jtidy and rhino done X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . can't do until jtidy and rhino done SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc . nope X package should build on i386 . can't do until jtidy and rhino done X package should build in mock . can't do until jtidy and rhino done -- 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