[Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing

[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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |mwringe at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-16 16:31 EST -------
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}
* verify source and patches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meet FHS
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm
W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing

This is fine.

* changelog fine
* 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
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  . the lines that aren't, I'm okay with
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no locale data
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web apps
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint junitperf-*.noarch.rpm
W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing
W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing
W: junitperf-demo no-documentation

These are all fine

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock

APPROVED

-- 
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.