[Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser

Mon Feb 12 20:27:11 UTC 2007

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127

mwringe at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com          |fnasser at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com  2007-02-12 15:26 EST -------
RPMLint Issues:
rpmlint xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp.src.rpm
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
E: xpp3 non-utf8-spec-file xpp3.spec

rpmlint xpp3-*
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
E: xpp3-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
W: xpp3-minimal non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3-minimal tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3-minimal invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-minimal no-documentation

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)

X the "o" in the release looks to come from a release, as such it should
  be part of the version (see the naming guidelines). Since this is jpp
  package, it should also include %{?dist} at the end of the release. It also
  needs to contain the fedora release.

 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
 - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
   not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
 - not a kernel module
 - not shareware
 - is it covered by patents?
 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 - no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license.
X this package is actually a BSD style license

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
   how to generate the the source drop; ie. 
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
X incorrect buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X dist needs to be added since jpp

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
X Many issues listed at top

* changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
X Vendor and distribution tag should be removed

* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
X javadoc linking needs to be changed to the remove rm/ln from the post and
posun javadoc sections

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
X will check on mock when other issues are resolved
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   bash
   bzip2
   coreutils
   cpio
   diffutils
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
   gcc
   gcc-c++
   gzip
   make
   patch
   perl
   redhat-rpm-config
   rpm-build
   sed
   tar
   unzip
   which
* Requires are proper
X This package should at least require java

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
X Many issues listed at top

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
X will check on mock when current issues are resolved

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.