[Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit

Wed Feb 14 21:26:34 UTC 2007

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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059

pcheung at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com          |overholt at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com  2007-02-14 16:26 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> X indicates issues needed fixing.
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
>  - match upstream tarball or project name - ok
>  - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
>  - specfile should be %{name}.spec - ok
>  - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
>    something) - ok
>  - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
>  - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
>    not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name - ok
> * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? yes- MIT
>  - OSI-approved
>  - not a kernel module
>  - not shareware
>  - is it covered by patents?
>  - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
>  - no binary firmware
> * license field matches the actual license. - ok
> * license is open source-compatible. - ok
>  - use acronyms for licences where common
> * specfile name matches %{name} - ok
> * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do) - ok
>  - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
>    how to generate the the source drop; ie.
>   # svn export blah/tag blah
>   # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
> * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> X correct buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.

> X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
> Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist}
Fixed.

> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
> license is not marked with %doc
There's no license text included in the zip.

> * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
> useless?)
> * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
> * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>  - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing
> But this can be ignored.
> * changelog should be in one of these formats:
>  
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
>  
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
>  
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>
>   - 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
>  
> * Packager tag should not be used
> X Vendor tag should not be used
> X Distribution tag should not be used
Got rid of these.
> * use License and not Copyright
> * Summary tag should not end in a period
> * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> * specfile is legible
>  - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch:      noarch
>  - please fix the javadoc symlink
> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> * BuildRequires are proper
>  - builds in mock will flush out problems here
>  - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
>    bash
>    bzip2
>    coreutils
>    cpio
>    diffutils
>    fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
>    gcc
>    gcc-c++
>    gzip
>    make
>    patch
>    perl
>    redhat-rpm-config
>    rpm-build
>    sed
>    tar
>    unzip
>    which
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
> instructions)
> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> line 127 is longer than 80 characters
Fixed.

> * specfile written in American English
> * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
>  - see
>   
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
> * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
> * don't use rpath
> * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
> * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
> * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
> * use macros appropriately and consistently
>  - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> * don't use %makeinstall
> * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
>  - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
>    end of %install
> * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
> * package should probably not be relocatable
> * package contains code
>  - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
>  - in general, there should be no offensive content
> * package should own all directories and files
> * there should be no %files duplicates
> * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
> * %clean should be present
> * %doc files should not affect runtime
> * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
> * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit no-documentation
It has no doc in the main package
> W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-demo no-documentation
No docs in demo either.
> W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok
> W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
Fixed javadoc stuff
> W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api
> /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
> W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative
> /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
>  
Don't know if there's anything that we can do about this. I've added a Requires:
javadoc for doc subpackage.
>  
> SHOULD:
> * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build on i386
Built fine.
> * package should build in mock
> 

spec file and srpm are available at:

https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/222/httpunit.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/223/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm

-- 
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.