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 pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx |mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 13:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name > X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons? Yes, changelog entries indicates: - Changed package name for compatibility > - 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. Got rid of it. and checked rpmdev-vercmp: pcheung@to-jpackage1 ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp Epoch1 :0 Version1 :B.8.7 Release1 :1jpp Epoch2 :0 Version2 :8.7 Release2 :1jpp.1.fc7 0:8.7-1jpp.1.fc7 is newer so epoch can stay at 0. > Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded > Added > - 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) > Fixed > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > X dist is missing Added > > * 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? > done > * 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 Added = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) Fixed > > - 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 > Done > * Distribution tag should not be used > X this needs to be removed > Done > * 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] > Added Requires:jpackage-utils > * 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. Done > W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives > - can we get around this dangling symlink? I don't think so, let me know if you know of some other way of doing this. > 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 Got rid of post for javadoc, and versioned dir, %ghost, etc. > 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 > > Also added a missing BR of ant. spec file and srpms can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/220/saxon8.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/221/saxon8-8.7-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- 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