[Bug 291191] Review Request: XGrep - A grep-like utility for XML files.

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Sep 15 17:11:50 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: XGrep - A  grep-like utility for XML files.


------- Additional Comments From jhrozek at redhat.com  2007-09-15 13:11 EST -------
I had a quick look at your package (not an official review, just to ease the 
work of the real reviewer), here are the results:

- = does not apply for this package
x = OK
! = Problem

[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the 
format %{name}.spec.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 - the Source0 tag is wrong. It should include full URL to the sources
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one 
supported architecture.
Tested on: x86

[x] Rpmlint output:
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct 
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other 
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

License type:
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in 
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the 
package is included i
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided 
in the spec URL.
    MD5SUM this package    :
    MD5SUM upstream package:
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that 
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 - missing libxml2-devel
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 - no locales
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or 
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI 
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains 
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: RHEL5 i686
[not tested] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 
supported architectures.
Tested on: x86
[x] Package functions as described.
 - tested only very basic functions
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===
1. does not rebuild in mock because of missing BR libxml2-devel
2. does not include full source URL

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list