[Bug 233004] Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation

[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: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233004





------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com  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.