[Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 14 22:52:56 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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125
overholt at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:52 EST -------
Updated spec and SRPM:
http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #1)
> ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
Yes.
> ?? - OSI-approved
It's LGPL so yes.
> ?? - is it covered by patents?
I don't think there's much we can do here.
> ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
I've verified the md5sum.
> NO * correct buildroot
> - should be:
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.
> NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
I've added %{?dist}
> NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
Fixed.
> NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>
> W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
Fixed.
> E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d
This was just because you didn't have the JPackage GPG on your system.
> NO * Vendor tag should not be used
Removed.
> ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
Done.
> NO * use macros appropriately and consistently
> install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
> (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar}
> `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done)
I think this is fine.
> ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
I think they're fine.
> ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-demo-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm
W: xom-demo no-documentation
I think this can be ignored.
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm
> NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
Fixed.
> ?? * package should build on i386
It does for me. I think you'll have to wait to verify until other packages are
built.
> NO * package should build in mock
I can't try until saxon is done, but I'm confident it will work.
--
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