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=227089
Summary: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Sun Multi-Schema XML Validator (MSV) is a Java technology tool to validate XML documents against several kinds of XML schemata. It supports RELAX NG, RELAX Namespace, RELAX Core, TREX, XML DTDs, and a subset of XML Schema Part 1. This latest (version 1.2) release includes several bug fixes and adds better conformance to RELAX NG/W3C XML standards and JAXP masquerading.
MSV proper.
Javadoc for MSV proper.
Samples for msv.
Relames.
Javadoc for relames.
rngconv.
xmlgen.
Javadoc for xmlgen.
xsdlib.
Javadoc for xsdlib.
Documents for msv.
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
vivekl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vivekl@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From vivekl@redhat.com 2007-02-13 21:01 EST ------- I am taking this one.
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
vivekl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
vivekl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl@redhat.com |mwringe@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From vivekl@redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:20 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem
MUST: X* package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name . The source does not match the CVS tag it claims. There is an extra class in the sources which is not in the tag. Use the msv-20060821 tag to extract the missing class: msv/xsdlib/src/com/sun/msv/datatype/xsd/DateType.java
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec + OK - 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 . Needs to conform to JPackage exception naming convention
X* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved . Seems OK, though I would like to get clearance from an experienced Fedora reviwer to ensure the licensing terms are clear for import? - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + Dont think any of these apply
* license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + Seems OK, though I would like to get clearance from an experienced Fedora reviwer to ensure the licensing terms are clear for import? * specfile name matches %{name} + OK
X* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) + There is a missing class in the claimed tag 20050722, I suggest replacing the tar ball with a clean export, see above
- 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 . Add instructions on how the source should be exported * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + OK X* correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Needs to be fixed
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) + Needs to conform to the fedora jpackage exception
X * license text included in package and marked with %doc . Needs a lot of %doc-ing
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + N/A * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + OK
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there ?
* 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. + OK
* Packager tag should not be used + OK
* Vendor tag should not be used + OK * Distribution tag should not be used + OK * use License and not Copyright + OK * Summary tag should not end in a period + OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement X* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . doesnt compile due to missing BRs.
* 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 + OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + OK X * make sure lines are <= 80 characters + Some lines are larger but they are macro definitions, this can possibly fly * specfile written in American English + OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160... + N/A
* 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? + None of the above dont apply
* use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + OK
* don't use %makeinstall + OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install + OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps + OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable + Not relocatable
* package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content + OK X* package should own all directories and files + Need jpackage-utils in requires...
* there should be no %files duplicates + OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + OK * %clean should be present + OK * %doc files should not affect runtime + OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . Doesnt build on mock or on JPackage reference machine since it needs crimson Source: rpmlint -i msv-1.2-0.20050722.3jpp.src.rpm W: msv non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides msv-strict The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv-strict The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides msv-strict-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv-strict-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides xsdlib The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xsdlib The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides xsdlib-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xsdlib-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible.
SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK X* package should build on i386 . Doesnt build on mock
X* package should build in mock . Doesnt build on 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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
vivekl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe@redhat.com |overholt@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From vivekl@redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:18 EST ------- I have put together a proposed srpm for Matt. Please start from this: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/msv/msv-1.2-0.1.20050722.3jpp.1....
Assigning to Andrew Overholt.
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@redhat.com |mwringe@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:41 EST ------- Updated SRPM and spec:
http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv-1.2-0.1.20050722.3jpp.1.src.rpm
The only rpmlint warning is on the demo sub-package about not having any documentation. I think this is fine.
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:16 EST ------- Looks good to me. 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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO CC| |wtogami@redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(mwringe@redhat.com | |)
------- Additional Comments From wtogami@redhat.com 2007-03-06 13:25 EST ------- Who will be the owner? You didn't request this with all needed information.
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(mwringe@redhat.com| |) |
------- Additional Comments From mwringe@redhat.com 2007-03-06 13:31 EST ------- Sorry, adding that now:
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: msv Short Description: Multischema Validator Owners: mwringe@redhat.com Branches: devel InitialCC:
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From dennis@ausil.us 2007-03-08 21:00 EST ------- Branched
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
mwringe@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jochen@herr-schmitt.de Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2011-12-13 11:22:56 EST --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: msv New Branches: el6 Owners: s4504kr
Package owner should confirm to this request. I have tried to contact original package owner but didn't saw any response, os I asume he is MIA.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-13 11:24:40 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@matbooth.co.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Mat Booth fedora@matbooth.co.uk 2011-12-17 12:42:49 EST --- Yes, I am fine with this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227089
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-18 16:31:01 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org