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: xmlunit - Provides classes to do asserts on xml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231303 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-20 15:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > X The summary is a little unclear. It should probably be something more like > "Unit Testing framework for XML" Done > * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > X rpmlint xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.src.rpm > W: xmlunit non-standard-group Development/Testing > W: xmlunit invalid-license BSD Style Software License > > The "Software License" part of the license should be removed to get rid of the > rpmlint warning. Done > X doesn't build > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > X doesn't build in mock > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > X summary should probably be changed (see above) > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) Done > X should the pdf be part of a manual package? Since there's only 1 pdf file, it should be ok to stay in there. > X can't build package > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 > * package should build in mock > > I will finish the review once the package can be built > I think we need to wait for mock on to-fcjpp1 to sync up with the latest java-1.5.0-gcj. Spec file and SRPM at the same location. -- 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