Bug 227115
| Summary: | Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Vivek Lakshmanan <viveklak> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | a.badger, lkundrak, tross |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mwringe:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-07-16 21:50:26 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Rafael H. Schloming
2007-02-02 17:57:49 UTC
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons?
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
+ ok
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should
probably be removed.
Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- 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
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
+ OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
* 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.
+ ok, link still works and md5sums match
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
X incorrect buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X dist is missing
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps
the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html?
* 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
X
rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl
W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)
- warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed.
* 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
* Vendor tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed
* Distribution tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed
* 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
- a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* 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
* 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
* specfile written in American English
+ ok
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
+ has a doc package
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
+ na
* don't use rpath
+ na
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
+ no config files
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
+ not a gui app
* 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
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
+ ok
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
+ no relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc]
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
+ ok
* %clean should be present
+ ok
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
X
rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-*
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 no-documentation
- see comments above about %doc for licenses.
W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives
- can we get around this dangling symlink?
W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-demo no-documentation
W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-dom no-documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
- this should be fixed
W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation
W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql no-documentation
W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xom no-documentation
W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation
Note: group warnings can be ignored.
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
(In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name > X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons? Yes, changelog entries indicates: - Changed package name for compatibility > - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency > - specfile should be %{name}.spec > + ok > - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or > something) > X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should > probably be removed. Got rid of it. and checked rpmdev-vercmp: pcheung@to-jpackage1 ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp Epoch1 :0 Version1 :B.8.7 Release1 :1jpp Epoch2 :0 Version2 :8.7 Release2 :1jpp.1.fc7 0:8.7-1jpp.1.fc7 is newer so epoch can stay at 0. > Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded > Added > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > - 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 > * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > + OSI-approved > - not a kernel module > - not shareware > - is it covered by patents? > - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator > - no binary firmware > * 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. > + ok, link still works and md5sums match > # svn export blah/tag blah > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > * correct buildroot > X incorrect buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > Fixed > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > X dist is missing Added > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps > the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html? > done > * 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 > X > rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm > W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl Added = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) Fixed > > - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed. > > * 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 > * Vendor tag should not be used > X this needs to be removed > Done > * Distribution tag should not be used > X this needs to be removed > Done > * 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 > - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > * 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 > * 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 > * specfile written in American English > + ok > * make a -doc sub-package if necessary > - see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > + has a doc package > * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible > + na > * don't use rpath > + na > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > + no config files > * GUI apps should contain .desktop files > + not a gui app > * 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 > * don't use %makeinstall > * locale data handling correct (find_lang) > - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the > end of %install > * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > + ok > * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines > * package should probably not be relocatable > + no relocatable > * package contains code > - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent > - in general, there should be no offensive content > * package should own all directories and files > X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc] > Added Requires:jpackage-utils > * there should be no %files duplicates > * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > + ok > * %clean should be present > + ok > * %doc files should not affect runtime > * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www > * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > X > rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-* > W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8 no-documentation > - see comments above about %doc for licenses. Done > W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives > - can we get around this dangling symlink? I don't think so, let me know if you know of some other way of doing this. > W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-demo no-documentation > W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-dom no-documentation > W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > - this should be fixed Got rid of post for javadoc, and versioned dir, %ghost, etc. > W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation > W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-sql no-documentation > W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-xom no-documentation > W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation > > Note: group warnings can be ignored. > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 > * package should build in mock > > Also added a missing BR of ant. spec file and srpms can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/220/saxon8.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/221/saxon8-8.7-1jpp.1.src.rpm Looks good to me. Approved. Note: this package was checked using dependencies not yet in rawhide. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: saxon8 Short Description: Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation Owners: vivekl Branches: devel InitialCC: vivekl,dbhole ping? It looks like this packages was branched in cvs in March and warren set the cvs done flag to "+" but it has not been imported into the cvs repository or built. I would import the srpm, but I cannot find it in the URL given above. Does anyone has a copy of it? Probably this should be closed, saxon 9 is out... Retracting review request. Most of comment #2 objections addressed in bug #532664 apart from marking %doc/conditions/intro.html as documentation in the main package. It's doesn't cover the licensing annyway and there's no good reason for duplication it since it is in separate documentation package. Several other small changes were done, such as changes to summary, description, getting rid sed-ding and unused macros. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 532664 *** |