[Bug 462560] Review Request: xmlpull-api - XmlPull v1 API is a simple to use XML pull parsing API

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462560


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-08-21 11:10:51 EDT ---
Output from rpmlint:

xmlpull-api.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
xmlpull-api-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
xmlpull-api.spec:39: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
xmlpull-api.spec:66: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
xmlpull-api.spec:140: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

All of which are fine.  We don't care about the group, and gcj forces you to
use %{_libdir}.

MUST items:
OK: rpmlint output
OK: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines
OK: spec file name matches package name
OK: package meets packaging guidelines
OK: package license meets licensing guidelines
OK: license field matches actual license
OK: license file included in %doc [1]
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible
OK: sources match upstream sources [2]
OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch (x86_64)
NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper locale handling
NA: proper use of ldconfig
NA: relocatable packages need rationale
OK: package owns all created directories
OK: no duplicate listings in %files
OK: permissions on files
OK: %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation in -doc subpackage
OK: nothing in %doc needed at runtime
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: Requires: pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires main package
OK: no libtool archives
NA: proper installation of desktop file
OK: does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
OK: clean at start of %install
OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: ask upstream to include license file
NA: provide translated summary and description
OK: package builds in mock (only tried Fedora 11 x86_64)
??: package builds into binary RPMs on all supported arches (did not check)
OK: package functions as described (only able to test lightly)
OK: sane scriptlets
OK: subpackages require main package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

Footnotes:
[1] %doc also includes LICENSE_TESTS.txt, which seems odd, since the tests are
neither run nor included in the binary package.

[2] With regard to comments #1 and #3, note that there have been more CVS
checkins (in 2006!) since the 1.1.4b tag, and the log entries for those
checkins refer to version 1.2-RC1.  There have been no messages to the user or
dev mailing lists since 2007.  Is upstream dead?

Here are a few more changes I would like you to consider.  I won't block the
review on any of these, but I think they are worth considering.
1. Make the -javadoc subpackage be noarch.
2. Add the doc subdirectory to %doc.
3. Make an -addons subpackage to hold (parts of) the addons/java subdirectory. 
This may be more trouble than it is worth.  I'll leave that judgment call to
you.
4. Make a -samples subpackage to hold (parts of) the src/java/samples
subdirectory.  Ditto #3.

-- 
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.