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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 00:10 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons? - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec + ok - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should probably be removed. Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? + OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. + ok * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + ok * specfile name matches %{name} + ok * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. + ok, link still works and md5sums match # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot X incorrect buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X dist is missing * license text included in package and marked with %doc X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output X rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed. * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used + ok * Vendor tag should not be used X this needs to be removed * Distribution tag should not be used X this needs to be removed * use License and not Copyright + ok * Summary tag should not end in a period + ok * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + ok * specfile is legible - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + ok * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + ok * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English + ok * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b + has a doc package * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible + na * don't use rpath + na * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) + no config files * GUI apps should contain .desktop files + not a gui app * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps + ok * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable + no relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc] * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + ok * %clean should be present + ok * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs X rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-* W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8 no-documentation - see comments above about %doc for licenses. W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives - can we get around this dangling symlink? W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-demo no-documentation W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-dom no-documentation W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm - this should be fixed W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-sql no-documentation W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-xom no-documentation W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation Note: group warnings can be ignored. SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock -- 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