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: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233004 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-20 11:42 EST ------- MUST: ? package is named appropriately - I guess the major version is included in the name because 3 breaks compatibility with the version 2 series? * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * source and patches verified * summary and description okay * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - change the non-standard groups in the subpackages * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License and not Copyright used * Summary tag does not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - remove the unneeded Epoch line - fix the Buildroot tag ? package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 - can't check without maven2, which hasn't hit Rawhide yet: I'll trust you to build this into plague, where it will be available * BuildRequires are proper * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary - not in the case of subpackages which simply reference the summary, but for these specific subpackages I think it's fine * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * -doc sub-package - javadoc subpackage OK * no static libs * no rpath * config files should marked with %config(noreplace) * not a GUI app * sub-packages fine * macros used appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * %makeinstall not used * no locale data * Requires(pre,post) fine * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files X no %files duplicates - LICENSE.txt duplicates across subpackages X file permissions okay; %defattrs present - '-', not explicit permissions * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - will leave these last two up to you, since maven2 is available in plague -- 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