Bug 227119

Fixed Spec and SRPM. Files need reviewing. They are here:

http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/ws-jaxme/

X indicates items needed fixing.
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
 - 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.
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X 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
Please mention that the password for anon cvs login is : anoncvs
Their server is down at the moment, i will check this again next time
Shall we mention how we get the doc tar ball as well?
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
-n missing
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
%{?dist} missing
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* 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
 - looks good, only:
W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
* 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
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
 - %{?dist} is missing from Release:
* 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
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
line 156, 157 are > 80 char.
* specfile written in American English
X make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
please use -doc as it's preferred.
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
antlr
hsqldb
jakarta-commons-codec
jaxp_transform_impl
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils
junit
log4j
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
xalan-j2
xerces-j2
xml-commons-apis
xmldb-api
xmldb-api-sdk
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme-javadoc = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme-manual = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
 
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint on mock built rpms:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-*
W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: ws-jaxme incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1
W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
 
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
built in mock

Fixed files are in:

http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/ws-jaxme/

Fixed the source location
Fixed the lines > 80 chars
%{?dist} added

The -manual package was not renamed to doc because jpackage uses -manual and we
need to stay as close to them as possible.

Great! APPROVED.

rpmlint on mock built rpms:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-*
W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

final provides and requires:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
antlr
hsqldb
jakarta-commons-codec
jaxp_transform_impl
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils
junit
log4j
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
xalan-j2
xerces-j2
xml-commons-apis
xmldb-api
xmldb-api-sdk
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme-javadoc = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
ws-jaxme-manual = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7

Reassigning for building in plague.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp
Short Description: Open source implementation of JAXB
Owners: nsantos
Branches: FC-7
InitialCC: rafaels,dbhole

Pardon the bugzilla spam.  This package appears to have been approved, imported,
and built.

If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented
in the package review process:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess?#head-df921556b35438a4c78b4b6a790151ea568e8f9e