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

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


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


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |227075, 227113




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-15 11:33 EST -------
Almost there:  Xs are the only things that need doing

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
X source and patches verified
  * md5sums match
  . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are
  necessary and/or what they do
* skim the summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
  . there's no license text included in the zip
* packages meet FHS
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing

-> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun

X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
  . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* -doc sub-package is fine
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package?
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* no locale data
* cp -p used
* no Requires(pre,post)
* package is not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  . nope
X package should build on i386
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
X package should build in mock
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done

-- 
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.