[Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126


jjohnstn at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com         |pcheung at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com  2007-02-12 14:00 EST -------
MUST:

X specfile should be %{name}.spec
X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
X change license to ASL
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
 - %doc not used
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d

X Vendor tag should not be used
X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period.
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
X manual subpackage should be renamed doc
X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package
  - should just be moved outside comment
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
[jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
[jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-demo no-documentation
W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
[jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
[jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build in mock

-- 
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.