[Bug 232555] Review Request: xml-commons-apis - APIs for DOM, SAX, and JAXP
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Mar 16 15:50:22 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: xml-commons-apis - APIs for DOM, SAX, and JAXP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232555
pcheung at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-03-16 11:50 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)
- the tar command to create src tar ball should be tar czf stead of xzf
- md5sum doesn't match, but diff -r shows contents are the same
- 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)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
- should the external/LICENSE.dom-software.txt marked as %doc as well?
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: xml-commons-apis non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xml-commons-apis invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C/Public Domain
* 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
- is 0jpp the correct release?
- just to be consistent, please add epoch in the Provides: jaxp = 1.3 (since
you have that in the other Provides & Obsoletes.
* 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
final provides and requires of the mock built binary RPMs:
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
jaxp = 1.3
xml-commons = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
xml-commons-apis-1.3.03.jar.so()(64bit)
xml-commons-jaxp-1.3-apis = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
xml-commons-apis = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-debuginfo-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-apis-1.3.03.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
xml-commons-apis-debuginfo = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-javadoc-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-apis-1.3.03.jar.so()(64bit)
xml-commons-apis-javadoc = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-manual-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
xml-commons-apis-1.3.03.jar.so()(64bit)
xml-commons-apis-manual = 0:1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
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
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-debuginfo-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-javadoc-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/ln
/bin/rm
/bin/rm
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 at to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-apis-manual-1.3.03-0jpp.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)
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint on mock built rpms:
W: xml-commons-apis non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xml-commons-apis invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C/Public Domain
W: xml-commons-apis-debuginfo invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C/Public
Domain
W: xml-commons-apis-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xml-commons-apis-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C/Public
Domain
W: xml-commons-apis-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xml-commons-apis-manual invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C/Public Domain
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