[Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 13 16:04:04 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: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-13 11:03 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> The spec that is attached still has the double Requires/missing BR problem.

Verified.

One problem I see is that I don't think its release is proper.  I'm under the
impression that it should be of the form:

0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist}

I don't see a Z in this case.

> E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog
> E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec

Verified.

> X BuildRoot incorrect.  Should be:
> 
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

I think this should be fixed regardless of the current discussion.  The
*current* review guidelines specify the buildroot so please use it.

> X remove "section free"

Verified.

> X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

I still get lots of:

7. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMAttrImpl.java
(at line 31)
public class DOMAttrImpl extends DOMNodeImpl implements org.w3c.dom.Attr {
             ^^^^^^^^^^^
The type DOMAttrImpl must implement the inherited abstract method
Attr.getSchemaTypeInfo()

This needs to be fixed.

> X BuildRequires are proper
> . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires

Verified.

> X package builds on i386
> . see above
> X package functions
>   . I don't know how to test this package

These are still present (obviously :).

-- 
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