[Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  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.