9:58 p.m.
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(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: mwringe(a)redhat.com
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/308/xml-commons-which....
SRPM URL:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/309/xml-commons-which-...
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.
--
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.
8:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)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(a)fedoraproject.org |pcheung(a)redhat.com
--
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.
9:14 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com 2007-03-16 10:14 EST -------
Updated Files:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/310/xml-commons-which....
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/311/xml-commons-which-...
--
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.
10:55 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pcheung(a)redhat.com |mwringe(a)redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From pcheung(a)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(a)redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)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-9bbfa57478f0460c6...
* 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
--
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.
2:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)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(a)redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)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-9bbfa57478f0460c6...
* 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-...
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/317/xml-commons-which....
--
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.
2:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|mwringe(a)redhat.com |pcheung(a)redhat.com
--
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.
3:50 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From pcheung(a)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
--
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.
4:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From mwringe(a)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(a)redhat.com
Branches: devel
--
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.
4:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
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.
6:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 232557] Review Request: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons
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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |medium
Priority|normal |medium
Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
Version|devel |rawhide
pcheung(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--
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.
5946
days inactive
6302
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla