Bug 227077

- 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).