[Bug 332861] Review Request: xmlgraphics-commons - library of components used by batik and fop

[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: xmlgraphics-commons - library of components used by batik and fop


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=332861





------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com  2007-11-22 13:44 EST -------
- rpmlint:

$ rpmlint xmlgraphics-commons-1.2-1.src.rpm

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2-1.noarch.rpm

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc-1.2-1.noarch.rpm 
xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/xmp/merge/class-use
02755
xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/util 02755
xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm
/usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/image/codec/png
02755
...

These directory permissions need to be set to 0755.

xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

Please fix.

xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

Please eliminate the post/postun sections by making xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc
simply own (with %doc) the %{name} symlink.

- package name fine

- spec file name matches package name

- package meets packaging guidelines

- package meets licensing guidelines

- license field matches actual license

- license marked %doc

Please mark the LICENSE file with %doc.

- spec file uses American English

- spec file legible

Please add a comment explaining this loop:

for j in $(find . -name "*.jar"); do
         mv $j $j.no
done

This is unnecessary:

install -dm 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
cp LICENSE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}

...

%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE

It can be replaced with:

%doc LICENSE

in the base %files section.  The %doc macro automatically handles installing the
package's documentation directory and installing therein files specified
relative to the build directory.  You should also include NOTICE and README on
the %doc line.

- source and upstream md5sum match

- package builds successfully on i386

- all build requirements listed

- no locales

- no shared libraries for ldconfig

- not relocatable

- directories: owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} which it creates, requires
  jpackage-utils for %{_javadir} into which it installs jar files

- no duplicate files

- -javadoc directory permissions not set properly

See above.

- %clean section fine

- consistent use of macros

- contains code

- doc subpackage

- docs don't affect runtime

- no header files

- no static libraries

- no pkgconfig files

- no library files

- no devel package

- no .la files

- no desktop files

- doesn't own other packages' directories

- removes buildroot at start of %install

- filenames valid UTF-8

- license text included

- no description/summary translations available

- builds in mock on i386

- other architectures not tested, but this is a noarch package, so I expect it
  will build on all architectures

- did not test proper functioning, since this is a library

Did you investigate running the test suite in %build?

- scriptlets are unnecessary

See above.

- javadoc package doesn't require base package -- fine

- no pkgconfig files

- packages required, rather than individual files


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.