Bug 233004
Summary: | Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andrew Overholt <overholt> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | fitzsim:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-04-01 15:56:10 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 232719, 232728 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 232725 |
Description
Andrew Overholt
2007-03-19 20:35:58 UTC
There is now a maven2 bootstrap package built. The main package is still building ATM but I think we're good to go with dependencies now. MUST: ? package is named appropriately - I guess the major version is included in the name because 3 breaks compatibility with the version 2 series? * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * source and patches verified * summary and description okay * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - change the non-standard groups in the subpackages * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License and not Copyright used * Summary tag does not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - remove the unneeded Epoch line - fix the Buildroot tag ? package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 - can't check without maven2, which hasn't hit Rawhide yet: I'll trust you to build this into plague, where it will be available * BuildRequires are proper * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary - not in the case of subpackages which simply reference the summary, but for these specific subpackages I think it's fine * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * -doc sub-package - javadoc subpackage OK * no static libs * no rpath * config files should marked with %config(noreplace) * not a GUI app * sub-packages fine * macros used appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * %makeinstall not used * no locale data * Requires(pre,post) fine * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files X no %files duplicates - LICENSE.txt duplicates across subpackages X file permissions okay; %defattrs present - '-', not explicit permissions * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - will leave these last two up to you, since maven2 is available in plague Updated SRPM and spec: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3.spec http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3-3.0-1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > ? package is named appropriately > > - I guess the major version is included in the name because 3 > breaks compatibility with the version 2 series? Yes. > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > > - change the non-standard groups in the subpackages Groups aren't a blocker, but I've fixed them anyway. > X specfile is legible > > - remove the unneeded Epoch line > > - fix the Buildroot tag Done and done. > X no %files duplicates > > - LICENSE.txt duplicates across subpackages I thought sub-packages should all contain it, but I've removed it from all but -common. > X file permissions okay; %defattrs present > > - '-', not explicit permissions Okay. APPROVED New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xmlrpc3 Short Description: Apache XML-RPC is a Java implementation of XML-RPC. Owners: overholt Branches: devel InitialCC: This is available in rawhide. |