[Bug 226555] Merge Review: xerces-j2
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Apr 19 15:47:38 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xerces-j2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226555
bugzilla at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-04-19 11:47 EST -------
Please fix item(s) mared 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)
- Source0 doesn't exist
* 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
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xerces-j2 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl
The group one is OK, please fix the unversioned-explicit-provides
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at 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)
X specfile is legible
- please get rid of section tag
- URL indicates 'Xerces has moved out of the XML project and is now a project
in its own right.' , please update with the new URL
- in this spec file, commands are usually just plain commands instead of
macros except for %{__sed}
* 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-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* 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
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
- please use cp -p on lines 164, 248-253
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
jaxp_parser_impl
xerces-j2-2.7.1.jar.so()(64bit)
xerces-j2-dom3 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives
/usr/sbin/update-alternatives
java-gcj >= 1.5.0
java-gcj >= 1.5.0
jaxp_parser_impl
jaxp_parser_impl
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
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xml-commons-apis >= 0:1.3
xml-commons-resolver >= 1.1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-debuginfo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-2.7.1.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
xerces-j2-samples.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
xerces-j2-debuginfo = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-debuginfo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-demo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-samples.jar.so()(64bit)
xerces-j2-demo = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-demo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
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)
xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-apis-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-dom3-javadoc = 0:9jpp.1.fc7-2.7.1
xerces-j2-javadoc-apis = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-apis-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-impl-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-javadoc-impl = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-impl-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-other-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-javadoc-other = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-other-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-xni-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-javadoc-xni = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-xni-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-scripts-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xerces-j2-scripts = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-scripts-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-*x86*rpm
W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xerces-j2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar /etc/alternatives
W: xerces-j2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar
/etc/alternatives
- Can these symlink warnings be fixed?
W: xerces-j2-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing
W: xerces-j2-demo no-documentation
- Is there any doc for the -demo package?
W: xerces-j2-javadoc-apis non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xerces-j2-javadoc-impl non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xerces-j2-javadoc-other non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xerces-j2-javadoc-xni non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xerces-j2-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xerces-j2-scripts no-documentation
- Is there any doc for the -scripts package?
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list