[Bug 232728] Review Request: ws-common-utils - Common utilities from the Apache Web Services Project

[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: ws-common-utils - Common utilities from the Apache Web Services Project


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232728


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |overholt at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From overholt at 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.