Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The ISO RELAX project is started to host the public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core. But nowadays some of the stuff we have is schema language neutral. Javadoc for isorelax.
I'll take this one.
Things marked with an X need to be fixed. MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X specfile name matches %{name} . the specfile needs to be isorelax.spec X verify source and patches . we need to add the following: # mkdir isorelax-release-20050331-src # cd isorelax-release-20050331-src # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \ # export -r release-20050331 src lib # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \ # co -r release-20050331 build.xml # cd .. # tar cjf isorelax-release-20050331-src.tar.bz2 isorelax-release-20050331-src X the description should be fixed to not be from the author's point of view X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - this won't hold up the review, though, as there's currently a discussion regarding buildroots going on X release tag . we need to fix the release tag to be of the form 0.Z.<tag>.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X license text included in package and marked with %doc . upstream does not include their license in CVS * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on isorelax srpm gives this output W: isorelax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java . can be ignored W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-obsoletes isorelax-bootstrap W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-provides isorelax-bootstrap . I think we should just remove those virtual obsoletes/provides as they've never been shipped in Fedora. W: isorelax setup-not-quiet . I think it's the cat. That should just be in a comment, I think. E: isorelax no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install . add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the beginning of %install W: isorelax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 38) . the easiest way to fix this is to run with emacs and do M-x untabify * changelog is in acceptable format * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used . remove Vendor . remove Distribution * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ? BuildRequires are proper . I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the packages that BRs this builds okay. * 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 * no static libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no need for a -devel sub-package? * macros used appropriately and consistently * no locale data * package is not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean is present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * final provides and requires are sane: X rpmlint on the binary RPMs: . package doesn't build on i386 11. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java (at line 15) public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract method DocumentBuilderFactory.setFeature(String, boolean) ---------- 12. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java (at line 15) public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract method DocumentBuilderFactory.getFeature(String) SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc . upstream does not do this X package should build on i386 . nope (see above) X package should build in mock . didn't try
Created attachment 147939 [details] This should clear up the issues with the review.
Fixed spec and SRPM: > ? BuildRequires are proper > . I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the > packages that BRs this builds okay. I still think this should be done. > X rpmlint on the binary RPMs: > . package doesn't build on i386 Fixed.
I've verified that it builds in mock. Fixed spec and SRPM: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax.spec http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm
Most of it is okay. I found the following issues: - License file is not present in the rpm, it should be, and marked %doc - javadoc directory should be marked %doc - Line 5 in %install is > 80 characters
(In reply to comment #6) > - License file is not present in the rpm, it should be, and marked %doc The package doesn't contain its licence. I don't think we should be adding it. > - javadoc directory should be marked %doc Fixed. > - Line 5 in %install is > 80 characters Fixed. Updated SRPM, spec, and binary RPMs: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax.spec http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-javadoc-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm
Fixes verified. Approved. Let me know when this is built in Brew and I will mark it closed.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: isorelax Short Description: Public interfaces for RELAX Core Owners: vivekl Branches: devel InitialCC: vivekl,dbhole
(In reply to comment #9) > New Package CVS Request > ======================= > Package Name: isorelax > Short Description: Public interfaces for RELAX Core > Owners: vivekl > Branches: devel > InitialCC: vivekl,dbhole Do you want dbhole to be a co-maintainer or just on initialCC? And the owner doesn't need to be listed in initialCC
(In reply to comment #10) > Do you want dbhole to be a co-maintainer or just on initialCC? Just on initial CC please > And the owner doesn't need to be listed in initialCC Ah wasnt quite clear from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure I will refrain from adding it in the future. Thanks!
Built. Should be visible in rawhide soon.
This builds in EL-5 - could we get a branch there?
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: junitperf New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: mbooth
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: isorelax New Branches: el6 Owners: s4504kr Original package owner should commit this is ok, but it seems that the package owner is MIA.
You only send your email 2 days ago. I was away for the weekend. ;-)