Bug 502991
| Summary: | Review Request: erlang-erlsom - Support for XML Schema in Erlang | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 1.2.1-3.el4 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-12-11 18:13:46 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
Peter Lemenkov
2009-05-28 06:28:21 UTC
This does not build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1392831 Please do a local mock build or a koji scratch build when submitting packages. Thanks for the note!
rpmlint is not silent, however these messages just because the package contains only bytecode data in %{libdir}.
[petro@Sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc10.ppc.rpm
erlang-erlsom.ppc: E: no-binary
erlang-erlsom.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro@Sulaco ppc]$
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlsom.spec
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc10.ppc.rpm
koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1393081
Tried to build this, but then realized that's not a src.rpm. Builds fine; rpmlint says the following:
erlang-erlsom.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-erlsom.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
which are normal for erlang packages.
The spec does not consistently use macros; in some places, macro-ized forms like "%{__rm}" are used, while elsewhere plain non-macro versions are used. This must be consistent; personally I see no benefit in the extra typing from using "%{__rm}" but you can use what you like.
The license is definitely not GPLv2+. Most files seem to be LGPLv3+, but erlsom_sax_lib.erl is GPLv2+. This would seem to imply that the whole is GPLv3+, but you should check with upstream to see what they intend.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
414b342f58ae0d35e612914223fa4b24355ede2f6586a53efbe73791a5dab3e3
erlsom-1.2.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named.
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12
erlang-erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12
erlang-erlsom(x86-64) = 1.2.1-3.fc12
=
erlang
* %check is present, no test suite upstream. I've no idea how to test this.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
It's been four months since my previous review commentary with no response; I'll go ahead and close this ticket soon if nothing further happens. Oh, I thought that I submitted updated spec, but it seems, that I lost this task in my TODO list. Here is it: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlsom.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: - No more using macros for rm/install/mv - License filed now is GPLv3+ Looks good to me now, although I think it's worth a comment to see how the license tag actually gets to be GPLv3+. I'd expect anyone not familiar with this ticket to be confused by that, given that none of the code in question actually carries that license. Did you check with upstream on that? If so, it may be a good idea to include that correspondence in the package. In any case, I don't think that issue should block the package at this point. APPROVED *** Bug 445797 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Added comments about the resulting language. No other changes in spec file were made. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-erlson Short Description: Support for XML Schema in Erlang Owners: peter Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: cvs done (with typo in name corrected). erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc11 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el5 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el4 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc12 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update erlang-erlsom'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0897 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update erlang-erlsom'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-4/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0905 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update erlang-erlsom'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-12035 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update erlang-erlsom'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12119 erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. erlang-erlsom-1.2.1-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |