Bug 455358

Summary:	Review Request: xslthl - XSLT Syntax Highlighting for saxon and xalan
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jeff Fearn 🐞 <jfearn>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nigel Jones <dev>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting, petersen
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	dev: fedora-review?
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-01-05 04:51:45 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 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2008-07-15 02:15:29 UTC

Spec URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl.spec
SRPM URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl-1.3-2jpp.fc9.src.rpm
Description: This is an implementation of syntax highlighting as an extension module for XSLT processors, so if you have e.g. article about programming written in DocBook, code examples can be automatically syntax highlighted during the XSLT processing phase.

This package is the JPP package with gcj_support disabled. There is an xmllint complain about _libdir, however since gcj_support is disabled this warning is incorrect.

I disabled it because the gcj support is broken and there is no need for it since we open_jdk is tha bomb.

I left the gcj code in the spec file so that if someone wants to re-enable gcj support they can do so.

This package will be used by the next version of publican to allow syntax highlighting of code embedded in documentation.

Comment 1 Nigel Jones 2008-07-22 04:24:50 UTC

Will tackle this shortly.

Comment 2 Nigel Jones 2008-07-22 11:38:47 UTC

Hmmm so I should have taken a sneak peak at the spec file before, here are some 
initial concerns:

- The spec file is licensed - Not good, might be an idea to rewrite from 
scratch.
- Epoch: is not needed as it's zero - Another 'bad thing' in Fedora
- We don't require that packages have Requires for /bin/rm and /bin/ln, you can 
safely assume that these exist
- According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java
-- The jpackage-utils dependency need to have a firm dependency  as well (not 
just a post/postun)
-- You don't need epochs for dependencies when they are 0,

It builds so your mostly there, but I'd sooner it be closer to the guidelines 
before I give it the big tick (hopefully any furthur changes would be minor 
enough you can just fix them upon import :))

Comment 3 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2008-09-11 06:26:31 UTC

I retrieved the latest source from the upstream developer and created a new spec file from scratch.

Spec URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl.spec
SRPM URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl-2.0.0.0.fc9.src.rpm

Comment 4 Nigel Jones 2008-10-13 01:01:36 UTC

(In reply to comment #3)
> I retrieved the latest source from the upstream developer and created a new
> spec file from scratch.
> 
> Spec URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl.spec
> SRPM URL: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl-2.0.0.0.fc9.src.rpm

Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires you need:

BR: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0
Depend: java >= 1:1.6.0

Seems to build with that, I'll finish the review on the basis that this has been done and we'll go from there.

Comment 5 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2008-10-13 06:21:58 UTC

http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl.spec updated as requested.

Comment 6 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2008-11-18 04:55:06 UTC

Sweet

http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl.spec
http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org/files/xslthl-2.0.0-1.fc9.src.rpm

Comment 7 Jeff Fearn 🐞 2009-01-05 04:51:45 UTC

Request withdrawn.