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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx |nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 17:52 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? Yes. > ?? - OSI-approved It's LGPL so yes. > ?? - is it covered by patents? I don't think there's much we can do here. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) I've verified the md5sum. > NO * correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) I've added %{?dist} > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc Fixed. > NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > > W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Fixed. > E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d This was just because you didn't have the JPackage GPG on your system. > NO * Vendor tag should not be used Removed. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 Done. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar} > `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) I think this is fine. > ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs I think they're fine. > ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-demo-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm W: xom-demo no-documentation I think this can be ignored. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm > NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc Fixed. > ?? * package should build on i386 It does for me. I think you'll have to wait to verify until other packages are built. > NO * package should build in mock I can't try until saxon is done, but I'm confident it will work. -- 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