Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libxml.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libxml-1.8.17-14.src.rpm Description: This library allows old Gnome-1 applications to manipulate XML files. This package was removed from Core for FC6 and I am submitting it to Extras to support the people that still need it for legacy applications. I used recent rawhide SRPM and then tweaked it for Extras and to suit my own cosmetic preferences. Reviewers may consider using rpmdiff to compare the built packages with the versions in Fedora Core 5.
OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 53846294aa850a7d042948176d1d19dc libxml-1.8.17.tar.gz 53846294aa850a7d042948176d1d19dc libxml-1.8.17.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. If the license is LGPL (as it appears to be), no need to include the COPYING file as that is the GPL. 2. The devel package has: Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version} That should probibly be: Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} 3. rpmlint says: E: libxml-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: libxml-devel no-documentation I think those can both be ignored in this case.
(In reply to comment #1) > Issues: > > 1. If the license is LGPL (as it appears to be), no need to include the > COPYING file as that is the GPL. doc/xml.html says: This library is released both under the W3C Copyright and the GNU LGPL. The only GPL bits appear to be the buildsystem (e.g. libtool), so I've dropped the COPYING file. > 2. The devel package has: > Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version} > That should probibly be: > Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Done. > 3. rpmlint says: > E: libxml-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > W: libxml-devel no-documentation > > I think those can both be ignored in this case. I agree. Next version: Spec URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libxml.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/Gnome-1/libxml-1.8.17-15.src.rpm
Excellent. All issues I see are fixed now, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this bug with NEXTRELEASE once the package has been imported and built.
17043 (libxml): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. Build logs may be found at http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/17043-libxml-1.8.17-15.fc6/ owners.list updated, closing bug. Thanks for the review.
Changed summary for tracking purposes.