[Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-12 16:22 EST -------
Things marked with an X need to be fixed.

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X specfile name matches %{name}
 . the specfile needs to be isorelax.spec
X verify source and patches
 . we need to add the following:
  # mkdir isorelax-release-20050331-src
  # cd isorelax-release-20050331-src
  # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \
  #   export -r release-20050331 src lib
  # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \
  #   co -r release-20050331 build.xml
  # cd ..
  # tar cjf isorelax-release-20050331-src.tar.bz2 isorelax-release-20050331-src
X the description should be fixed to not be from the author's point of view
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 - this won't hold up the review, though, as there's currently a discussion
   regarding buildroots going on
X release tag
 . we need to fix the release tag to be of the form
   0.Z.<tag>.Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
 . upstream does not include their license in CVS
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on isorelax srpm gives this output

W: isorelax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

. can be ignored

W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-obsoletes isorelax-bootstrap
W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-provides isorelax-bootstrap

. I think we should just remove those virtual obsoletes/provides as they've
  never been shipped in Fedora.

W: isorelax setup-not-quiet

. I think it's the cat.  That should just be in a comment, I think.

E: isorelax no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install

. add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the beginning of %install

W: isorelax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 38)

. the easiest way to fix this is to run with emacs and do M-x untabify

* changelog is in acceptable format
* Packager tag should not be used
X Vendor tag should not be used
 . remove Vendor
 . remove Distribution
* use License and not Copyright 
* 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
 . I'm not sure about this one.  I guess we should verify if one of the
   packages that BRs this builds okay.
* 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
* no static libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no need for a -devel sub-package?
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no locale data
* package is not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean is present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a webapp
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* final provides and requires are sane:

X rpmlint on the binary RPMs:
 . package doesn't build on i386

11. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java
(at line 15)
    public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract
method DocumentBuilderFactory.setFeature(String, boolean)
----------
12. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java
(at line 15)
    public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract
method DocumentBuilderFactory.getFeature(String)

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
 . upstream does not do this
X package should build on i386
 . nope (see above)
X package should build in mock
 . didn't try

-- 
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.