Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
Summary: Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mwringe@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/308/xml-commons-which.spe... SRPM URL: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/309/xml-commons-which-1.0... Description: The which subproject is an environment checking utility that scans your environment and reports common versions of xml-related files.
NOTE: this package contains the which component of the xml-commons package currently in core. The xml-commons package needs to be split due to its srpm containing sources for both xml-commons-apis and xml-commons-which.
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: xml-commons-|Review Request: xml-commons- |which - Which subproject of |which - Which subproject of |xml-commons |xml-commons AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pcheung@redhat.com
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-03-16 10:14 EST ------- Updated Files: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/310/xml-commons-which.spe... https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/311/xml-commons-which-1.0...
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
pcheung@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung@redhat.com |mwringe@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From pcheung@redhat.com 2007-03-16 11:54 EST ------- Please fix items marked by X: MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - 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. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - md5sum doesn't match, i got the following when diff'ing the src tar ball and from the svn export: diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/LICENSE.dom-software.txt ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/LICENSE.dom-software.txt 74c74 < (last updated $Date: 2002-02-01 00:13:42 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2002) $) \ No newline at end of file ---
(last updated $Date: 2002-01-31 18:13:42 -0500 (Thu, 31 Jan 2002) $)
\ No newline at end of file diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/core.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/core.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/attribute.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/attribute.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/cdata-section.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/cdata-section.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/comment.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/comment.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/data.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/data.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/document.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/document.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/dom.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/dom.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/element.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/element.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/exceptions.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/exceptions.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/named-node-map.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/named-node-map.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node-list.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node-list.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/notation.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/notation.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/pi.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/pi.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/text.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/text.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/css.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/css.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/stylesheets.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/stylesheets.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ --> ---
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913 $ -->
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct 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) * license text included in package and marked with %doc X keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) should we get rid of the old changelog entries since this is now a new package and some of those may only apply to xml-commons-apis? * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML - OK
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible * 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 * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160... * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates X file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present - do we need %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) twice in the first %files section? * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs final provides and requires of the mock built binary RPMs: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) xml-commons-which = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xml-commons-which-debuginfo = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) xml-commons-which-javadoc = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm/bin/sh /bin/sh ant ant-launcher java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-*x86_64.rpm pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:1.0-0.b2.0jpp.1 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: xml-commons-which-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog warning (first .1 missing in release)
SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-03-16 15:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2)
Please fix items marked by X: MUST:
- package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something)
- 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.
- license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
- specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- md5sum doesn't match, i got the following when diff'ing the src tar ball and
from the svn export: diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/LICENSE.dom-software.txt ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/LICENSE.dom-software.txt 74c74 < (last updated $Date: 2002-02-01 00:13:42 +0100 (Fri, 01 Feb 2002) $) \ No newline at end of file
(last updated $Date: 2002-01-31 18:13:42 -0500 (Thu, 31 Jan 2002) $)
\ No newline at end of file diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/core.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/core.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/attribute.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/attribute.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/cdata-section.xml
../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/cdata-section.xml
3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/comment.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/comment.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/data.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/data.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/document.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/document.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/dom.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/dom.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/element.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/element.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/exceptions.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/exceptions.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/named-node-map.xml
../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/named-node-map.xml
2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node-list.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node-list.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/node.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/notation.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/notation.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/pi.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/pi.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/text.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/core/definitions/text.xml 3c3 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/css.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/css.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
diff -r xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/stylesheets.xml ../xml-commons-1_0_b2/java/external/xdocs/dom/xml/style/stylesheets.xml 2c2 < <!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 13:15:37 +0200 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
<!-- $Date: 2001-06-01 07:15:37 -0400 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001) $ $Revision: 225913
$ -->
Yeah, I don't know what is causing the 6 hour time stamp difference between the two, this shouldn't be an issue since all the code is the same. I have updated the sources so this should not be an issue anymore.
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
- skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
- correct 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)
- license text included in package and marked with %doc
X keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) should we get rid of the old changelog entries since this is now a new package and some of those may only apply to xml-commons-apis?
Ok, I removed them. Since I based this off the xml-commons package which is split up I kept the old changelogs, but I guess this doesn't make much sense.
- packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
- rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML - OK
changelog should be in one of these formats:
- Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
- Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
- Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
Packager tag should not be used
Vendor tag should not be used
Distribution tag should not be used
use License and not Copyright
Summary tag should not end in a period
if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
specfile is legible
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
- description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
- make sure lines are <= 80 characters
- specfile written in American English
- make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160...
- packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
- don't use rpath
- config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
- GUI apps should contain .desktop files
- should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
- use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- don't use %makeinstall
- locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install
- consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
- split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
- package should probably not be relocatable
- package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
- package should own all directories and files
- there should be no %files duplicates
X file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
- do we need %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) twice in the first %files section?
The second one is removed.
- %clean should be present
- %doc files should not affect runtime
- if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
- verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
final provides and requires of the mock built binary RPMs: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) xml-commons-which = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xml-commons-which-debuginfo = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-which-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) xml-commons-which-javadoc = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm/bin/sh
/bin/sh ant ant-launcher java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-*x86_64.rpm
pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:1.0-0.b2.0jpp.1 1:1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: xml-commons-which-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog warning (first .1 missing in
release) Done
SHOULD:
- package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
- package should build on i386
- package should build in mock
New Files: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/316/xml-commons-which-1.0... https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/317/xml-commons-which.spe...
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe@redhat.com |pcheung@redhat.com
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
pcheung@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From pcheung@redhat.com 2007-03-16 16:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
...
Yeah, I don't know what is causing the 6 hour time stamp difference between the two, this shouldn't be an issue since all the code is the same. I have updated the sources so this should not be an issue anymore.
Great!
X keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) should we get rid of the old changelog entries since this is now a new package and some of those may only apply to xml-commons-apis?
Ok, I removed them. Since I based this off the xml-commons package which is split up I kept the old changelogs, but I guess this doesn't make much sense.
Thanks.
X file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
- do we need %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) twice in the first %files section?
The second one is removed.
OK
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on mock built rpms:
Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog warning (first .1 missing in
release) Done
Great!
rpmlint on mock built binary rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-* W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
APPROVED
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-03-16 17:01 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xml-commons-which Short Description: Which subproject of xml-commons Owners: mwringe@redhat.com Branches: devel
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=232557
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
pcheung@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla