[Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 14 18:08:55 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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115
pcheung at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:08 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
> - match upstream tarball or project name
> X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility
reasons?
Yes, changelog entries indicates:
- Changed package name for compatibility
> - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
> - specfile should be %{name}.spec
> + ok
> - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
> something)
> X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should
> probably be removed.
Got rid of it. and checked rpmdev-vercmp:
pcheung at to-jpackage1 ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp
Epoch1 :0
Version1 :B.8.7
Release1 :1jpp
Epoch2 :0
Version2 :8.7
Release2 :1jpp.1.fc7
0:8.7-1jpp.1.fc7 is newer
so epoch can stay at 0.
> Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded
>
Added
> - 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.
> + ok
> * license is open source-compatible.
> - use acronyms for licences where common
> + ok
> * specfile name matches %{name}
> + ok
> * 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.
> + ok, link still works and md5sums match
> # 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)
>
Fixed
> * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
> X dist is missing
Added
>
> * license text included in package and marked with %doc
> X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps
> the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html?
>
done
> * 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
> X
> rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
> W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl
Added = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
> W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)
Fixed
>
> - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed.
>
> * 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
> + ok
> * Vendor tag should not be used
> X this needs to be removed
>
Done
> * Distribution tag should not be used
> X this needs to be removed
>
Done
> * use License and not Copyright
> + ok
> * Summary tag should not end in a period
> + ok
> * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> + ok
> * specfile is legible
> - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section
> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> * BuildRequires are proper
> - 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
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> + ok
> * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
> instructions)
> + ok
> * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> * specfile written in American English
> + ok
> * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
> - see
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
> + has a doc package
> * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
> + na
> * don't use rpath
> + na
> * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
> + no config files
> * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
> + not a gui app
> * 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
> + ok
> * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
> * package should probably not be relocatable
> + no 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
> X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc]
>
Added Requires:jpackage-utils
> * there should be no %files duplicates
> * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
> + ok
> * %clean should be present
> + ok
> * %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
> rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-*
> W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8 no-documentation
> - see comments above about %doc for licenses.
Done
> W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar
/etc/alternatives
> - can we get around this dangling symlink?
I don't think so, let me know if you know of some other way of doing this.
> W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-demo no-documentation
> W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-dom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> - this should be fixed
Got rid of post for javadoc, and versioned dir, %ghost, etc.
> W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-sql no-documentation
> W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-xom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation
>
> Note: group warnings can be ignored.
>
> SHOULD:
> * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build on i386
> * package should build in mock
>
>
Also added a missing BR of ant.
spec file and srpms can be found at:
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/220/saxon8.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/221/saxon8-8.7-1jpp.1.src.rpm
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list