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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx |jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 11:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > > X specfile should be %{name}.spec it is xpp2.spec currently > X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} release is now 6jpp.1%{?dist} > X change license to ASL rpmlint doesn't like ASL, it's now Apache Software License > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec I checked the md5sum, and they are the same, could you please check again? Here's what I've done: [pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ wget http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz --10:29:51-- http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz Resolving www.extreme.indiana.edu... 129.79.246.105 Connecting to www.extreme.indiana.edu|129.79.246.105|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 2310288 (2.2M) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1' 100%[=======================================>] 2,310,288 168K/s in 14s 10:30:06 (156 KB/s) - `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1' saved [2310288/2310288] [pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum PullParser2.1.10.tgz 865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f PullParser2.1.10.tgz [pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum ~/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz 865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f /home/pcheung/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - %doc not used Fixed > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > > W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development Fixed > W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML That's ok > W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed -ASL > E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d > I'm not seeing this error on the rpms > X Vendor tag should not be used got rid of Vendor and Distrition. > X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period. Fixed. > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > X manual subpackage should be renamed doc done > X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package > - should just be moved outside comment Moved license and readme back into main package and mark all docs %doc > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development Fixed > W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML That's ok > W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed > [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation That's OK > W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed > W: xpp2-demo no-documentation There's no doc for that subpackage > W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed > [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style > W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed > [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style > W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > Fixed > SHOULD: > X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build in mock built fine in mock, the only rpmlint warnings from the src and binary rpms left are: W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-doc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo no-documentation which should be OK. -- 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