Fedora Merge Review: xerces-j2 http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xerces-j2/ Initial Owner: mwringe
Updated Files here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/352/xerces-j2.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/351/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.src.rpm
Please fix item(s) mared by X: MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - Source0 doesn't exist * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xerces-j2 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl The group one is OK, please fix the unversioned-explicit-provides * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - please get rid of section tag - URL indicates 'Xerces has moved out of the XML project and is now a project in its own right.' , please update with the new URL - in this spec file, commands are usually just plain commands instead of macros except for %{__sed} * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps - please use cp -p on lines 164, 248-253 * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm jaxp_parser_impl xerces-j2-2.7.1.jar.so()(64bit) xerces-j2-dom3 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/sbin/update-alternatives /usr/sbin/update-alternatives java-gcj >= 1.5.0 java-gcj >= 1.5.0 jaxp_parser_impl jaxp_parser_impl libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) xml-commons-apis >= 0:1.3 xml-commons-resolver >= 1.1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-debuginfo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-2.7.1.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xerces-j2-samples.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xerces-j2-debuginfo = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-debuginfo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-demo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-samples.jar.so()(64bit) xerces-j2-demo = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-demo-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-apis-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-dom3-javadoc = 0:9jpp.1.fc7-2.7.1 xerces-j2-javadoc-apis = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-apis-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-impl-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-javadoc-impl = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-impl-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-other-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-javadoc-other = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-other-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-xni-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-javadoc-xni = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-javadoc-xni-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-scripts-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xerces-j2-scripts = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-scripts-2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 xerces-j2 = 0:2.7.1-9jpp.1.fc7 X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-*x86*rpm W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xerces-j2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar /etc/alternatives W: xerces-j2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar /etc/alternatives - Can these symlink warnings be fixed? W: xerces-j2-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing W: xerces-j2-demo no-documentation - Is there any doc for the -demo package? W: xerces-j2-javadoc-apis non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xerces-j2-javadoc-impl non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xerces-j2-javadoc-other non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xerces-j2-javadoc-xni non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xerces-j2-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xerces-j2-scripts no-documentation - Is there any doc for the -scripts package? SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock
(In reply to comment #2) > > * specfile name matches %{name} > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - Source0 doesn't exist Updated link location > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > * correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > useless?) > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: xerces-j2 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl > The group one is OK, please fix the unversioned-explicit-provides Fixed > X specfile is legible > - please get rid of section tag Done > - URL indicates 'Xerces has moved out of the XML project and is now a project > in its own right.' , please update with the new URL This is the proper URL, they are just saying welcome to the new project page they are not part of the XML project anymore. > - in this spec file, commands are usually just plain commands instead of > macros except for %{__sed} Fixed > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > - please use cp -p on lines 164, 248-253 fixed (note -a is the same as -dpR) > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpmlint > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-*x86*rpm > W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: xerces-j2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar /etc/alternatives > W: xerces-j2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar > /etc/alternatives > - Can these symlink warnings be fixed? No, the package needs to use the external Alternatives system, therefore the symlinks warnings can't be removed. > > W: xerces-j2-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing > W: xerces-j2-demo no-documentation > - Is there any doc for the -demo package? No > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-apis non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-impl non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-other non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-xni non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xerces-j2-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: xerces-j2-scripts no-documentation > - Is there any doc for the -scripts package? No > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 > * package should build in mock > Updated SRPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/351/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > * specfile name matches %{name} > > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > > - Source0 doesn't exist > Updated link location md5sum matches > > > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > > * correct buildroot > > - should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > > locations) > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > > useless?) > > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > > W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > > W: xerces-j2 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl > > The group one is OK, please fix the unversioned-explicit-provides > Fixed > > > > X specfile is legible > > - please get rid of section tag > Done > Great! > > - URL indicates 'Xerces has moved out of the XML project and is now a project > > in its own right.' , please update with the new URL > This is the proper URL, they are just saying welcome to the new project page > they are not part of the XML project anymore. OK > > > - in this spec file, commands are usually just plain commands instead of > > macros except for %{__sed} > Fixed > Great! > > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > > - please use cp -p on lines 164, 248-253 > fixed (note -a is the same as -dpR) > Ah, OK. > > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpmlint > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xerces-j2-*x86*rpm > > W: xerces-j2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > > W: xerces-j2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar > /etc/alternatives > > W: xerces-j2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/jaxp_parser_impl.jar > > /etc/alternatives > > - Can these symlink warnings be fixed? > No, the package needs to use the external Alternatives system, therefore the > symlinks warnings can't be removed. > OK > > > > W: xerces-j2-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing > > W: xerces-j2-demo no-documentation > > - Is there any doc for the -demo package? > No OK > > > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-apis non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-impl non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-other non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > W: xerces-j2-javadoc-xni non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > W: xerces-j2-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > > W: xerces-j2-scripts no-documentation > > - Is there any doc for the -scripts package? > No OK > > > > > SHOULD: > > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > > * package should build on i386 > > * package should build in mock > > > > Updated SRPM: > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/351/xerces-j2-2.7.1-9jpp.1.src.rpm > Looks good. APPROVED
*** Bug 456281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***