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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-16 16:31 EST ------- 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} * verify source and patches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meet FHS * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output $ rpmlint junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing This is fine. * changelog fine * 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 * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters . the lines that aren't, I'm okay with * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package * macros used appropriately and consistently * no locale data * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web apps * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint junitperf-*.noarch.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing W: junitperf-demo no-documentation These are all fine SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock APPROVED -- 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