Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Dom4j depends on a jaxen build with dom4j support. This package must only be installed in the rare event of having to rebuild dom4j.
MUST: X package is named appropriately . release should be of the form 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this X license field matches the actual license. . according to their website, it's Apache-style * license is open source-compatible. X specfile name matches %{name} . specfile should be jaxen-bootstrap.spec X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) . where do the xsl and xml files come from? . we should note why dom4j is needed * summary and description fine X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X %{?dist} needs to be added X license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: jaxen-bootstrap non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java . fine W: jaxen-bootstrap invalid-license Open Source X fix this W: jaxen-bootstrap unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap . I think this is an unnecessary provide W: jaxen-bootstrap rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . get rid of the rm -rf line at the beginning of prep ... E: jaxen-bootstrap no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ... and add it to the beginning of %install W: jaxen-bootstrap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) X fix this (emacs M-x untabify) * changelog in okay format X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReqs * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I need xom to build this package ? BuildRequires are proper . I'll have to wait to build this to ensure this * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * does not use %makeinstall * no locale data ? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps (%prep line 4 * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not be relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files should not affect runtime (N/A until licence added) * not a web app X final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . remove unnecessary Provides: %{name}? . I will do the rest when I can build it X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I will when I can build it SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc X package should build on i386 X package should build in mock
Created attachment 148022 [details] patch that fixes a lot of issues in the spec I can't verify everything because I can't build it yet due to not having xom. I'm also continuing to investigate the source of the xsl and xml files.
Created attachment 148075 [details] patch for 1.1b7 to clear up issues > X package is named appropriately > . release should be of the form 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} Fixed. rpmvercmp used to verify that epoch bump not necessary. > X license field matches the actual license. > . according to their website, it's Apache-style Fixed. > X specfile name matches %{name} > . specfile should be jaxen-bootstrap.spec Yup. > X verify source and patches > . where do the xsl and xml files come from? > . we should note why dom4j is needed Notes added. I can't find the source upstream anymore so I don't know how to verify the md5sums :( > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > X %{?dist} needs to be added Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc Fixed. > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > W: jaxen-bootstrap invalid-license Open Source > > X fix this Fixed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap > > . I think this is an unnecessary provide Removed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > . get rid of the rm -rf line at the beginning of prep ... Done. > E: jaxen-bootstrap no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > > ... and add it to the beginning of %install Fixed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) > > X fix this (emacs M-x untabify) Done. > X Vendor tag should not be used > X Distribution tag should not be used Fixed, fixed. > ? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps (%prep line 4 Unnecessary as it's only used for bootstrap building. > X final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > . remove unnecessary Provides: %{name}? Done. I still can't build, but I think other than the that the source can't be found, everything is taken care of by this patch. Except perhaps changing the licence to BSD which is what I think it actually is.
I've got a 1.1 final spec. I can't make the SRPM until xom is finished, but if I used a canned upstream xom and comment out the BR, it works fine. I've put it here: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap.spec
Updated jaxen 1.1 for bootstrapping: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm
Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jaxen-bootstrap Short Description: A convenience package for build of dom4j Owners: vivekl Branches: devel InitialCC:
branched
Reassigning to main reviewer.
Closing - in rawhide
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: jaxen-bootstrap New Branches: el6 Owners: s4504kr
Git done (by process-git-requests).