[Bug 232555] Review Request: xml-commons-apis - APIs for DOM, SAX, and JAXP

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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|mwringe at redhat.com          |pcheung at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review-              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com  2007-03-16 16:11 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > ...
> > * 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
> oops, fixed the instruction to be czf instead of xzf. md5sums will not match on
> checkouts since the folders will have different time stamps.
Great!
> 
> >  ...
> >    %{_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?
> Yes, it should have been, its now added
Great!
> > * 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
> > 
> > 
> > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> > X specfile is legible
> >  - is 0jpp the correct release?
> yes, since this package is updated in fedora before its updated in jpp, 0jpp
> must be used so that future version (1jpp, 2jpp, ..) will continue to function
> properly.
> 
OK
> >  - just to be consistent, please add epoch in the Provides: jaxp = 1.3 (since
> >     you have that in the other Provides & Obsoletes.
> jaxp is not a package, its a specification. So its only 1.3
> 
OK
> >...
> 
> New Files:
> https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/314/xml-commons-apis.spec
>
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/315/xml-commons-apis-1.3.03-0jpp.1.src.rpm
> 
> 
> 
> 
Built fine in mock.

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.