[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tra...@redhat.com

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---

Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 Generic 
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
 Note: Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
 separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
 include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
 /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
 --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
 upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: SHOULD Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
 Note: Source0: oauth-20100601-clean-src-svn.tar.gz (oauth-20100601-clean-
 src-svn.tar.gz) Patch0: oauth-20100601-poms.patch
 (oauth-20100601-poms.patch)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


 Java 
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to 

[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
One more thing - since there are erlang-oauth, python-oauth, rubygem-oauth and
php-oauth, please change the name of the package to java-oauth to be consistent
with the Fedora repo. Thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-24 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-oauth.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-oauth-20100601-2.fc16.src.rpm
- renamed java-oauth
- moved all of the jar files into oauth subdirectory

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-23 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||tra...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com ---
Taking it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 820995] Review Request: oauth - An open protocol to allow API authentication

2012-05-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820995

Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||akurt...@redhat.com
 Blocks||652183(FE-JAVASIG)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review