Bug 227077
Summary: | Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mat.booth, tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | overholt:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-03-07 20:40:41 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Rafael H. Schloming
2007-02-02 17:43:14 UTC
- incorrect build root - %{?dist} should be used - remove javadoc %post and %postun sections $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.src.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: junitperf non-utf8-spec-file junitperf.spec W: junitperf mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 89) $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf tag-not-utf8 %changelog $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-javadoc-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation E: junitperf-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: junitperf-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: junitperf-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-demo-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf-demo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: junitperf-demo no-documentation - remove Vendor tag - 80 characters per line Fixed spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/junitperf/ 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 New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: junitpref Short Description: JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing Owners: mwringe Branches: devel InitialCC: I seem to have made a typo in the above comment, it should have been "junitperf" instead of "junitpref". Can I please get this renamed properly in cvs. Thanks, Matt Wringe corrected Build into plague. Marking as NEXTRELEASE Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: junitperf New Branches: el6 Owners: mbooth Git done (by process-git-requests). |