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 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-15 12:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > 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 comments added > 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 > Done > X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that Done > * 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 will do the rest when jtidy and rhino are ready. > 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