[Bug 747659] Review Request: proxool - Java connection pool library

[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=747659

Ben Thompson <bct at d0g.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bct at d0g.co.uk

--- Comment #1 from Ben Thompson <bct at d0g.co.uk> 2011-11-08 18:57:07 EST ---
This is an informal review, don't have a sponsor yet.

=== generic ===

OK - MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK - MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
OK - MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
OK - MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
OK - MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
CHECK - MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
 proxool-0.9.1-source.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : f3e1d02b53c12e15282002fad50b9ef5
  MD5SUM upstream package : f3e1d02b53c12e15282002fad50b9ef5
 proxool.pom :
  MD5SUM this package     : 553a3091f43900e8ac6af9d03c6c83c2
  MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found
OK - MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
OK - SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
OK - SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.

=== java related ===

OK - MUST - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
OK - MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
OK - MUST - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
CHECK - MUST - Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
OK - MUST - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
symlink)
OK - MUST - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
OK - MUST - Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
OK - MUST - Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
OK - MUST - Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

-- 
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.