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: ws-common-utils - Common utilities from the Apache Web Services
Project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232728
overholt(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |overholt(a)redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From overholt(a)redhat.com 2007-03-19 11:20 EST -------
APPROVED. Thanks, Anthony!
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
* 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/)
* rpmlint on ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.src.rpm gives no output
* 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
* 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
* lines are <= 80 characters (where appropriate)
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* 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 present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
$ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-javadoc-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm
ws-commons-util-javadoc = 1.0.1-1
$ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm
ws-commons-util-1.0.1.jar.so
ws-commons-util = 1.0.1-1
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-javadoc-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm
W: ws-commons-util-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
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 haven't tried, but I don't anticipate any problems.
--
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.