[Bug 594040] Review Request: apache-commons-fileupload - rename of jakarta-commons-fileupload

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594040

--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com> 2010-05-20 10:05:28 EDT ---
Review:

OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. OUTPUT:

apache-commons-fileupload-javadoc.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
jakarta-commons-fileupload-javadoc
Just obsoleting documentation package is OK

apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) api -> pi,
ape, apt
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html ->
HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax
-> java, java x, Java
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
servlet -> servile, serviette, servility
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rfc
-> RFC, rec, Pfc
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html
-> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api
-> pi, ape, apt
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
multipart -> multiparty, multiplier, multiplexer
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http
-> HTTP
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
HttpServletRequest 
apache-commons-fileupload.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-fileupload

Not a problem. 

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadocs
subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK: Package is correctly Obsoleting/Providing the old jakarta package. 

Things to fix:
* javadoc package is missing Requires:  jpackage-utils

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.