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=226548 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-31 03:50:21 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: xalan-j2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> servile, serviette, servility xalan-j2.noarch: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML xalan-j2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-2.7.1/NOTICE.txt xalan-j2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-2.7.1/LICENSE.txt xalan-j2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives xalan-j2.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-2.7.1/KEYS xalan-j2.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/xalan-j2.jar xalan-j2-demo.noarch: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML xalan-j2-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runXalan.sh 0644L /bin/sh xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runXalan.sh xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runDerby.sh 0644L /bin/sh xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runDerby.sh xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runExtConnection.sh 0644L /bin/sh xalan-j2-demo.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/xalan-j2/samples/extensions/sql/runExtConnection.sh xalan-j2-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-manual-2.7.1/xsltc/README.xsltc xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-manual-2.7.1/xsltc/README.xslt xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-manual-2.7.1/resources/script.js xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-manual-2.7.1/xsltc/resources/script.js xalan-j2-manual.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/xalan-j2-manual-2.7.1/apidocs /usr/share/javadoc/xalan-j2 xalan-j2-xsltc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stylesheets -> style sheets, style-sheets, stylishness xalan-j2-xsltc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US translets -> trans lets, trans-lets, translates xalan-j2-xsltc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML xalan-j2-xsltc.noarch: W: no-documentation xalan-j2-xsltc.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/xsltc.jar 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 21 warnings. You know what to do :-) Except maybe those examples...if they run fine in-place perhaps they could be made +x, otherwise just leave them -x [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [!] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: ASL 1.1 and ASL 2.0 and W3C If I understand LICENSE.txt correctly, parts of xalan are generic BSD license (JLex, CUP) [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own xsltc, manual and javadoc subpackages don't have LICENSE.txt and don't require base package [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : fc805051f0fe505c7a4b1b5c8db9b9e3 [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. Missing zip BR [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. xsltc subpackage doesn't require jpackage utils, but its other deps should pull it in so no problem [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) Remove clean and rm -rf [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building These lines are a problem: # FIXME who knows where the sources are? xalan-j1 ? mv tools/xalan2jdoc.jar.no tools/xalan2jdoc.jar mv tools/xalan2jtaglet.jar.no tools/xalan2jtaglet.jar Build of xalan-j2 uses binary files that we don't have sources for. If you can't find sources I guess we could ask for an exception (we need these files just to build, they are not installed). [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) Perhaps maven support could be added? === Maven === [-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [-] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [-] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for %update_maven_depmap macro) === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (missing zip in BR) Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 === Issues === 1. rpmlint problems (groups, EOLs, classpaths-in-manifests etc) 2. buildroot, clean section and rm -rf buildroot 3. license review and inclusion in sub-packages 4. zip BR 5. use of bundled libs for building 6. unused patches 7. stale commented snippets 8. I'd prefer if jars in %prep were -delete(ed) instead of moved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review