Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/ws-common-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: This is version 1.0.1 of the common utilities from the Apache Web Services Project.
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/ws-common-utils.spec Oops. This is really... http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/ws-commons-util.spec
APPROVED. Thanks, Anthony! 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 * 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/) * rpmlint on ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.src.rpm gives no output * 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 * 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 * lines are <= 80 characters (where appropriate) * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * %makeinstall not used * 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 present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-javadoc-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm ws-commons-util-javadoc = 1.0.1-1 $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm ws-commons-util-1.0.1.jar.so ws-commons-util = 1.0.1-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/ws-commons-util-javadoc-1.0.1-1.i386.rpm W: ws-commons-util-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock . I haven't tried, but I don't anticipate any problems.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ws-common-utils Short Description: Common utilities from the Apache Web Services Project Owners: green@redhat.com Branches: devel