Spec URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/xqc/xqc.spec SRPM URL: http://mgieseki.fedorapeople.org/xqc/xqc-1.0-0.1.20101120svn.fc14.src.rpm Description: The goal of the XQC project is to create standardized C/C++ APIs for interfacing with XQuery processors. They provide mechanisms to compile and execute XQueries, manage contexts, and provide a basic interface for the XQuery Data Model. Note: This is a pretty small package that provides the xqc header file and some related documentation. Since both xqilla-devel and the Zorba XQuery processor (which I'm planning to package) rely on xqc, we need to get rid of the bundled xqc headers and provide a separate package.
I support this change.
I'll review it
Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2714364
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is almost silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/xqc-1.0-0.1.20101120svn.fc15.* xqc.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/xqc.h ^^^ this seems to be ok. This package contains only this file. Although I prefer that such packages should be named ad *-devel I have no strong opinion here. xqc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xqc.tar.gz ^^^ that's ok for development snapshots. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. work ~: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I have only two cosmetic suggestions: * You may use svn export instead of svn co (you don't need to explicitly remove .svn case of using export) * Explicitly mentioning svn version in %version field sounds like a good idea. These notes won't block the approval - feel free to ignore them. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. +/- The package contains only one header file. Generally, we're placing such files into *-devel packages but IMO this is not the same case - *-devel packages are supplementary ones to the other rpms, which could be used standalone. So I don't think we need to create virtual provides or rename package here - this package is specifically designed to contain only header files. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, here is a summary: * Please, consider my cosmetic notes above. * Regardless of the result of your consideration (these notes are just cosmetic ones), this package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review and your notes, Peter. Much appreciated. I prefer to keep the package name "xqc" because this is the name of the upstream project, and "xqc-devel" might indicate that there must be a corresponding non-devel "xqc" package (just my impression). I'll think about your other suggestions. Thanks again.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xqc Short Description: C/C++ API for interfacing with XQuery processors Owners: mgieseki Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13
xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14
xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xqc-1.0-0.2.20101120svn7.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.