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: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227085 tbento@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx |mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-14 11:50 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - 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 OK - 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? - OSI-approved OK (see below) - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - 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 The md5sum do not match. When I do a diff, I get the following: diff -r wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java ../upstream/wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java 80c80 < * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 20:25:08 +0200 (Wed, 21 Sep 2005) $ --- > * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 14:25:08 -0400 (Wed, 21 Sep 2005) $ I think this is okay. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. Summary should be "Tools to manage artifacts and deployment". * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK X license text included in package and marked with %doc There is no license text included in package, so this is OK. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java Both of these warnings can be ignored. * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK X make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK (only code lines are > 80) There are some lines with more than 80 characters, but they are code lines and rpmlint did not complain about them, so this is OK. * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK (see additional notes) * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK (See above) * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock OK Other Notes: - Removed "%define section free". - Should gcj support be added? -- 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