Bug 508549
Summary: | Review Request: xml-writer - Java filter class designed to work with SAX2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sandro Mathys <sandro> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jerry James <loganjerry> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, loganjerry, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | loganjerry:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 0.2-2.fc11 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-09-25 17:25:26 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
Sandro Mathys
2009-06-28 14:21:12 UTC
Rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST items: OK: rpmlint output (see above) OK: named according to package naming guidelines OK: spec file name matches package name XX: package meets packaging guidelines: You need to add a comment on the patch. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment OK: Fedora approved license. I wouldn't worry about that. I found public domain declarations in multiple files. OK: License field matches actual license OK: License file is included in %doc OK: Spec file in American English OK: Spec file is legible OK: Sources match upstream (compare equal with md5sum) OK: package builds into binary RPM on at least one arch (F-11 x86_64) NA: Appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: All build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: Proper handling of locales NA: ldconfig called in %post/%postun OK: No relocatable packages OK: Package owns all directories it creates OK: No duplicate listings in %files OK: Appropriate permissions in %files OK: Package has a %clean section with appropriate contents OK: Consistent use of macros OK: Code or permissible content NA: Large documentation in a -doc subpackage OK: No runtime dependencies in %doc NA: Header files in -devel NA: Static libraries in -static NA: Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires base package NA: No libtool archives NA: GUI applications need a desktop file OK: Don't own files/dirs already owned by other packages OK: Clean at the beginning of %install OK: All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: Ask upstream to include a license file NA: Provide translated description and summary fields OK: Package builds in mock (checked x86_64 F-11 only) ??: Package builds on all supported arches (did not check) OK: Package functions as described (minimal testing only) OK: Sane scriptlets OK: Subpackages require base package NA: Placement of pkgconfig files NA: File dependencies Finally, I have a few comments on the spec file. First, would you consider adding ChangeLog and BUGS to %doc? I know their contents may be trivial, and the author isn't working on the code right now, but there just may be a new version some day .... Second, the -javadoc subpackage does not need to "Requires: jpackage-utils", since it requires the base package, which requires jpackage-utils. Third, I don't understand the use of %dir in the "%files javadoc" section. I think this is more readable: %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_javadocdir}/%{name} %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} Ah, I forgot one thing. Would you also "rm -f" the pre-built jar file in %prep, just for my peace of mind? Thanks. Sandro, if you still want to submit this package to Fedora, please respond within the next week. Jerry, sorry for not working on this for such a long time. I actually started to fetch up with review request today and will try to bring up a new version of xml-writer tomorrow (CEST). Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xml-writer.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xml-writer-0.2-2.fc11.src.rpm Okay, I lied. I had some spare minutes und just did it :) Fixed everything you mentioned above. Thanks for the review so far! No problem. As it turns out, I've been totally swamped at work for the last 3 days. I'm just now coming up for air... This looks good. I see no further issues, so this package is APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xml-writer Short Description: Java filter class designed to work with SAX2 Owners: red Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: cvs done. xml-writer-0.2-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml-writer-0.2-2.fc10 xml-writer-0.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml-writer-0.2-2.fc11 xml-writer-0.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. xml-writer-0.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |