Spec URL: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/blob/master/decentxml/decentxml.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/ae470761a321cb560195aa090c15c5d1a2944617/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-19.fc31.src.rpm Description: XML parser optimized for round-tripping and code reuse with main features being: * Allows 100% round-tripping, even for weird whitespace between attributes in the start tag or in the end tag * Suitable for building editors and filters which want/need to preserve the original file layout as much as possible * Error messages have line and column information * Easy to reuse individual components * XML 1.1 compatible Fedora Account System Username: cipherboy on behalf of the Stewardship SIG
A few comments here from me: - Google Code shutdown and the author has moved to BitBucket. - The r1.4 release is the latest non-snapshot release; this is what is present in previous Fedora releases. - The BitBucket 1.4 release was compared against lookaside using meld; only the file paths differed. - I need to bump the release and add a changelog message for these cosmetic changes. - There's a newer 1.5 release (from 2015) that's in snapshot (pre-release) stage, but no 1.5 release was ever cut as far as I can tell. It has a few minor bug fixes, especially w.r.t. tests. I've decided to stick with 1.4 since that matches what is in maven central currently. - No commits since 2015, and little activity from 2016.
Commit 6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d bumps release, adds changelog entry. SPEC: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/blob/master/decentxml/decentxml.spec SRPM: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm
Please link the raw spec for fedora review to work.
Ah sorry, so done: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml.spec
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm
The only thing that catches my attention is that it should switch to using %license for installing the license instead of %doc
Issues: ======= - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license - Typographical error in URL: bitbucker.org -> bitbucket.org - Spelling error in description: whitespace -> white-space If you fix these three minor problems, then this package is APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm decentxml-javadoc-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.src.rpm decentxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace decentxml.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> decentxml-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> decentxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace decentxml.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlts20031210.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706 https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/get/r1.4.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191 Requires -------- decentxml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem decentxml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- decentxml: decentxml mvn(de.pdark:decentxml) mvn(de.pdark:decentxml:pom:) decentxml-javadoc: decentxml-javadoc
I'd imagine that whitespace is an accepted spelling by now but perhaps not... :-) FWIW that section of %description is lifted verbatim from upstream: https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/src/default/, but I've made that change. SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/51f47ed7a1c2df54b54a6db427819a4d42fc75a6/decentxml/decentxml.spec SRPM: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/51f47ed7a1c2df54b54a6db427819a4d42fc75a6/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm
Alex, you can file the unretirement request for master/f31 now: https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?title=Unretirement%20request:%20decentxml&template=package_unretirement Then you'll also need to do "fedpkg request-branch f31", since the f31 branch doesn't exist yet.
So filed: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9107
(In reply to Alex Scheel from comment #10) > So filed: > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9107 Any progress here?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/decentxml/pull-request/1
decentxml-1.4-20.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2019-c044572ef8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c044572ef8