Bug 231263
Summary: | Review Request: xml-commons-apis12 - JAXP 1.2, DOM 2, SAX 2.0.1, SAX2-ext 1.0 apis | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | wtogami:
fedora-cvs+
|
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-03-13 14:36:47 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Matt Wringe
2007-03-07 04:44:48 UTC
The docs seem to be copied to %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} instead of being copied into %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}. They shouldn't be copied manually; just use %doc in %files section. rpmlint is complaining about non-standard Groups. The main package should probably be System/Libraries and the other ones can be Development or something like that. (In reply to comment #1) > The docs seem to be copied to %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} > instead of being copied into %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}. > They shouldn't be copied manually; just use %doc in %files section. ok, I changed this to use the %doc section. > rpmlint is complaining about non-standard Groups. The main package should > probably be System/Libraries and the other ones can be Development or something > like that. We have always been told that the rpmlint group warnings should just be ignored. (see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html) The groups have been updated to get rid of this warning though, One other change I made to the spec file, I had the wrong license listed. The package has components under different licenses (Apache, w3c and public domain). These have been listed as "License: Apache Software License/W3C License/Public Domain" in the spec file. rpmlint will complain about this situation. Updated files located here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/272/xml-commons-apis12.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/271/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.src.rpm Please remove the second BuildRoot. What is epocj in ... Provides: %{name}-apis-javadoc = %{epocj}:%{apis_version_1_2} ? The %setup section includes... # remove all binary libs and prebuilt javadocs rm -rf `find . -name "*.jar" -o -name "*.gz"` The sources don't include any .jar or .gz files, so I think this could be removed. Are we adding Red Hat copyright notices to these files (seeing as JPP has them). I think this should be ready to go once these are taken care of / answered. Thanks! (In reply to comment #3) > Please remove the second BuildRoot. removed > What is epocj in ... > Provides: %{name}-apis-javadoc = %{epocj}:%{apis_version_1_2} > ? oops, spelling mistake, change to epoch > The %setup section includes... > > # remove all binary libs and prebuilt javadocs > rm -rf `find . -name "*.jar" -o -name "*.gz"` > > The sources don't include any .jar or .gz files, so I think this could be removed. removed > Are we adding Red Hat copyright notices to these files (seeing as JPP has them). I don't think I have seen them outside of the jpp packages. > > I think this should be ready to go once these are taken care of / answered. > > Thanks! > > New Files uploaded there: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/285/xml-commons-apis12.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/286/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.src.rpm Here's the full review. This package is APPROVED. Thanks! * package meets and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * License text included in package. * source files match upstream (extracted from upstream svn so no md5sum available.) * latest version is being packaged (well, the latest 1.2 version). * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock. * rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.i386.rpm W: xml-commons-apis12 invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C License/Public Domain We can ignore this. Similarly for other xml-commons-api12 packages. * final provides and requires are sane: dom = 2 jaxp = 1.2 sax = 2.0.1 xml-commons-apis = 1.2 xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04.jar.so xslt = 1.0 xml-commons-apis12 = 0:1.2.04-0jpp.1 == java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present * scriptlets OK * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app (no .desktop file required). * not a web app. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xml-commons-apis12 Short Description: AXP 1.2, DOM 2, SAX 2.0.1, SAX2-ext 1.0 apis Owners: mwringe Branches: devel InitialCC: Please assign the review to the reviewer in the future. |