[Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2

[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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |dbhole at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-13 11:52 EST -------
Lines marked with X need to be fixed.  ? lines should be looked at if
possible.

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 verify source and patches
 . we really need to host the source tarball somewhere other than just in the
   SRPM.  Even just on your people page is fine.  The XML file as well.
X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
 . "maven2 dependent" -> "maven2-dependent"
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used appropriately
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
 . since you're maintaining the source, can you include the ASL text?
* package(s) meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on maven2-common-poms-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm gives no output
  W: maven2-common-poms non-standard-group Development/Java
  . safe to ignore
* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* License used and not Copyright 
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
X BuildRequires are proper
 . why the Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils?  There's no %postun.
* summary is a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* lines are <= 80 characters (except buildroot which is fine)
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* no locale data
? consider using cp -p on line 5 of %install
* no Requires(pre,post)
* package 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
  . adding ASL.txt won't affect this
* not a web app
* final provides and requires sane
* rpmlint on the binary RPMs:

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package builds on i386
? package builds in mock
  . it's just building in mock now ... I don't anticipate a problem

-- 
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.