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: xalan-c - Xalan XSLT processor for C Alias: xalan-c-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248632 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-11-20 22:03 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (ASL 2.0) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0a3fbb535885531cc544b07a2060bfb1 Xalan-C_1_10_0-src.tar.gz 0a3fbb535885531cc544b07a2060bfb1 Xalan-C_1_10_0-src.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: Non blocker issues to note: - Might ask upsteam to not ship CVS dirs in their release tar to avoid you having to remove them. - The upstream web page confusingly calls this "Xalan-C++", even tho the release tar, download dirs and other places call it xalan-c. Perhaps ask them which it really should be? 1. rpmlint says: ignore: xalan-c-devel.i386: W: no-documentation Perhaps this tar.gz should be unpacked? Or is it needed in that format as part of docs? xalan-c-doc.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/xalan-c-doc-1.10.0/xdocs/xml-site-style.tar.gz If possible, docs should be readonly... xalan-c-doc.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xalan-c-doc-1.10.0/samples/configure xalan-c-doc.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xalan-c-doc-1.10.0/samples/runConfigure xalan-c-doc.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xalan-c-doc-1.10.0/xdocs/run xalan-c-doc.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/xalan-c-doc-1.10.0/samples/configure.in Those items are quite minor however, so if you could look into them before importing that would be fine. This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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