[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





------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com  2007-02-15 12:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> 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
comments added
>   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
> 
Done
> X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that
Done
> * 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


will do the rest when jtidy and rhino are ready.
> 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.