Bug 233519 - Review Request: amqp - grammar for amqp wire format
Summary: Review Request: amqp - grammar for amqp wire format
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nuno Santos
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-03-22 21:13 UTC by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 23:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-12 15:20:32 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
nsantos: fedora-review+
tibbs: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-03-22 21:13:00 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/amqp.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/srpms/amqp-0.8-2rhm.src.rpm
Description: grammar for amqp wire format

Comment 2 Nuno Santos 2007-03-23 20:19:29 UTC
Review: amqp-0.8-2rhm.1.src.rpm

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

OK * package is named appropriately
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
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 %
OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

- warnings:
$ rpmlint amqp-0.8-2rhm.1.src.rpm
W: amqp non-standard-group Development/Java
(this warning is ok, according to past reviews)
W: amqp invalid-license AMQP
(license is open-source compatible)

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * Distribution 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
NA * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
NA * 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
OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * 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
NA * %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
- warnings: see above

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

Package is approved

Comment 3 Nuno Santos 2007-03-23 20:21:26 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: amqp
Short Description: The AMQP specification
Owners: nsantos@redhat.com, rafaels@redhat.com
Branches: devel

Comment 4 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:47:11 UTC
Pardon the bugzilla spam.  This package appears to have been approved, imported,
and built.

If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented
in the package review process:

Comment 5 Nuno Santos 2007-10-26 15:39:56 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: amqp
New Branches: F-7 F-8

Please add branches to allow inclusion in F-7 updates and F-8 updates.

Comment 6 Warren Togami 2007-10-29 17:26:03 UTC
Again, these already exist.  What is your actual goal here?

Comment 7 Nuno Santos 2011-05-03 21:57:36 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: amqp
New Branches: el6
Owners: nsantos silas

Got a request to add an EPEL-6 branch because of the python-txamqp dependency: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633063

Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2011-05-05 15:27:05 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.