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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-10 19:13 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on jtidy srpm gives no output W: jtidy non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML . ignore this one E: jtidy unknown-key GPG#c431416d . I don't where this is coming from. Perhaps the SRPM just needs to be rebuilt on Fedora? E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec . I think this *might* be the accent in Ville's last name * package is named appropriately X specfile name matches %{name} . the specfile should just be jtidy.spec X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . remove "section free" . remove BuildArch . why have the scripts sub-package at all? I think we should just put jtidy.script into the main jtidy package. This should be done at JPackage, though, I guess, so don't worry about it here. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible . I think the script should be renamed to just %{name}.script ... but this is . why use %__rm and not just rm? . same for %__chmod, %ant, %__sed, and %__ln_s -> just a nit-pick and not something that will hold up the review * source files match upstream (md5sum checked) X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I get a whole bunch of these errors using the latest gcj 4.1 branch (with the generics backport): [javac] 26. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMElementImpl.java (at line 31) [javac] public class DOMElementImpl extends DOMNodeImpl [javac] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [javac] The type DOMElementImpl must implement the inherited abstract method Element.setIdAttribute(String, boolean) X BuildRequires are proper . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files X no %files duplicates . I don't think the %ghost is necessary for the last entry in %files javadoc * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * final provides and requires are sane Note: we should try to gcj-ify this package while we're at it. SHOULD: * package includes license text X package builds on i386 . see above X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I'll try to test on Monday -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review