[Bug 233519] Review Request: amqp - grammar for amqp wire format

[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: amqp - grammar for amqp wire format


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233519


nsantos at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com  2007-03-23 16:19 EST -------
Review: amqp-0.8-2rhm.1.src.rpm

Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify

MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

- warnings:
$ rpmlint amqp-0.8-2rhm.1.src.rpm
W: amqp non-standard-group Development/Java
(this warning is ok, according to past reviews)
W: amqp invalid-license AMQP
(license is open-source compatible)

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * Distribution tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright 
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
NA * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
NA * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
- warnings: see above

SHOULD:
OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
OK * package should build on i386
OK * package should build in mock


Package is approved

-- 
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.