Bug 227075

MUST:
X rpmlint on jtidy srpm gives no output

W: jtidy non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML

. ignore this one

E: jtidy unknown-key GPG#c431416d

. I don't where this is coming from.  Perhaps the SRPM just needs to be
rebuilt on Fedora?

E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec

. I think this *might* be the accent in Ville's last name

* package is named appropriately
X specfile name matches %{name}
. the specfile should just be jtidy.spec
X package meets packaging guidelines.

. BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot

it should be:

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

. remove "section free"
. remove BuildArch
. why have the scripts sub-package at all?  I think we should just put
jtidy.script into the main jtidy package.  This should be done at JPackage,
though, I guess, so don't worry about it here.

* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
. I think the script should be renamed to just %{name}.script ... but this is
. why use %__rm and not just rm?
. same for %__chmod, %ant, %__sed, and %__ln_s
-> just a nit-pick and not something that will hold up the review
* source files match upstream (md5sum checked)
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
. I get a whole bunch of these errors using the latest gcj 4.1 branch (with the
generics backport):

    [javac] 26. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMElementImpl.java
(at line 31)
    [javac]     public class DOMElementImpl extends DOMNodeImpl
    [javac]                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    [javac] The type DOMElementImpl must implement the inherited abstract method
Element.setIdAttribute(String, boolean)

X BuildRequires are proper
. one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires
* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
X no %files duplicates
. I don't think the %ghost is necessary for the last entry in %files javadoc
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
. javadoc package present
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* final provides and requires are sane

Note:  we should try to gcj-ify this package while we're at it.

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
X package builds on i386
. see above
X package functions
  . I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
  my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I'll try to test on Monday

Created attachment 147907 [details]
Spec file with AOT added

I am passing the rest upstream.  So I hope to get a new version from them soon.

Humm, Bugzilla loses the comment when one also adds an attachment.  Here is the
last SRPM with AOT:

http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.7jpp.src.rpm

Will try and get one without the duplicate requires and perhaps without the
script subpackage if possible.

Created attachment 147929 [details]
Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed

Created attachment 147930 [details]
Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed

Comment on attachment 147929 [details]
Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed

duplicate

http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.src.rpm

has the double Requires/missing BR fixed

The spec that is attached still has the double Requires/missing BR problem.

Here is the review for the attached specfile and
http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.src.rpm :

Still remaining (things requiring fixes being with X):

X rpmlint on jtidy srpm gives no output

W: jtidy non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML

. ignore this one

E: jtidy unknown-key GPG#c431416d

. ignore this.  it's just the JPackage GPG key.

E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog
E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec

. I think this *might* be the accent in Ville's last name
. run:  iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
X BuildRoot incorrect.  Should be:

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

X remove "section free"
? why have the scripts sub-package at all?  I think we should just put
jtidy.script into the main jtidy package.  This should be done at JPackage,
though, I guess, so don't worry about it here.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
? I think the script should be renamed to just %{name}.script
? why use %__rm and not just rm?
? same for %__chmod, %ant, %__sed, and %__ln_s
-> just nit-picks and not something that will hold up the review
* source files match upstream (md5sum checked)
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
. I get a whole bunch of these errors using the latest gcj 4.1 branch (with the
generics backport):

    [javac] 26. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMElementImpl.java
(at line 31)
    [javac]     public class DOMElementImpl extends DOMNodeImpl
    [javac]                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    [javac] The type DOMElementImpl must implement the inherited abstract method
Element.setIdAttribute(String, boolean)

X BuildRequires are proper
. one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires
* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
. javadoc package present
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* final provides and requires are sane

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
X package builds on i386
. see above
X package functions
  . I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
  my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I'll try to test on Monday

Created attachment 147941 [details]
Fixed spec file

http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.1.src.rpm

iconv run  (thanks for the hint)

section removed

R->BR both in attached spec and SRPM now (got the wrong spec file attached before)

added .1%{?dist}

(In reply to comment #9)
> The spec that is attached still has the double Requires/missing BR problem.

Verified.

One problem I see is that I don't think its release is proper.  I'm under the
impression that it should be of the form:

0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist}

I don't see a Z in this case.

> E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog
> E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec

Verified.

> X BuildRoot incorrect.  Should be:
> 
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

I think this should be fixed regardless of the current discussion.  The
*current* review guidelines specify the buildroot so please use it.

> X remove "section free"

Verified.

> X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

I still get lots of:

7. ERROR in
/home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMAttrImpl.java
(at line 31)
public class DOMAttrImpl extends DOMNodeImpl implements org.w3c.dom.Attr {
             ^^^^^^^^^^^
The type DOMAttrImpl must implement the inherited abstract method
Attr.getSchemaTypeInfo()

This needs to be fixed.

> X BuildRequires are proper
> . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires

Verified.

> X package builds on i386
> . see above
> X package functions
>   . I don't know how to test this package

These are still present (obviously :).

I am not sure what is the better course of action w.r.t. the pre-release for
these dated packages that were in the previous format (all others get the right
rpm ordering, but the YYYYMMDD is a really big number, and for some reason
Fedora decided that svn and cvs come _after_ the number).

We have basically two choices:

1) Change the format now to the new one and... raise Epoch!

2) Let it be a little longer with the current date in the hopes a release will
be issued.

Also, I have my doubts about the way the source tar ball is named.  This date
seems to be the indication of a branch creation date, the release being actually
the characters that come after it.  I am sending an e-mail to the authors to get
that straighten up before we have to do two Epoch bumpings.

Updated spec and SRPM:

http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
  OK

 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
  OK

 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
  OK

 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
  OK

 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
  OK

 - 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
  OK 
 
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
  OK

 - not a kernel module
  OK

 - not shareware
  OK

 - is it covered by patents?
  OK

 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
  OK

 - no binary firmware
  OK

* license field matches the actual license.
  OK

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
  OK

* specfile name matches %{name}
  OK

* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - 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
  OK

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
  OK

* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
  OK

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
  OK

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
  OK

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
  OK

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
  OK

X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
  - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
  Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on
this though

* changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.


* Packager tag should not be used
  OK

X * Vendor tag should not be used
  Tag is still there

X * Distribution tag should not be used
  Tag is still there

* use License and not Copyright 
  OK

* Summary tag should not end in a period
  OK

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
  OK

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
  OK

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
  OK

* 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

  OK

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  OK

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  OK

* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  OK

* specfile written in American English
  OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
  OK

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
  OK

* don't use rpath
  OK

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
  OK

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
  OK

* 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
  OK

* don't use %makeinstall
  OK

* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
  OK

X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
  Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
  OK

* package should probably not be relocatable
  OK

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
  OK

X * package should own all directories and files
  /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement

* there should be no %files duplicates
  OK

* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
  OK

* %clean should be present
  Ok

* %doc files should not affect runtime
  OK

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
  OK

X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  Missing a "Requires: xml-commoms-apis" ?

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
  OK

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  OK

* package should build on i386
  OK

* package should build in mock
    

Additionally:
- Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec
- 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital

Updated spec and SRPM:

http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #15)
> X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>   - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
>   Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on
> this though

Done.

> X * Vendor tag should not be used
>   Tag is still there
> 
> X * Distribution tag should not be used
>   Tag is still there

Fixed, fixed.

> X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
>   Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap

Done.

> X * package should own all directories and files
>   /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement

Fixed.

> X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
>   Missing a "Requires: xml-commoms-apis" ?

There is a Requires: xml-commons-apis already.

> - Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec

I've changed the crazy conditional gcj_support line to just be gcj_support 1

> - 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital

Fixed.

APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp
Short Description: HTML syntax checker and pretty printer
Owners: nsantos
Branches: FC-7
InitialCC: rafaels,dbhole