[Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources

[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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111


nsantos at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com          |pcheung at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review-              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com  2007-02-19 11:11 EST -------
marking fedora-review+


qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm

Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify

MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK - 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
OK - 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?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK* specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

--
$ rpmlint qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
(these warnings look ok)
--

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright 
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
OK * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

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


-- 
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.