Bug 227115 - Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation
Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQue...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 532664
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Vivek Lakshmanan
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:57 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-16 17:50:26 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mwringe: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:57:49 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
Description: Release 8.6 represents an important milestone in Saxonica's
progressive implementation of the XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and
XQuery 1.0 specifications. Saxon 8.6 is aligned with the W3C
Candidate Recommendation published on 3 November 2005. It is
a complete and conformant implementation, providing all the
mandatory features of those specifications and nearly all the
optional features.
Saxon is available in two versions. Saxon-B is a non-schema-aware
processor, and is available as an open-source product, free of
charge, from SourceForge. It is designed to conform to the basic
conformance level of XSLT 2.0, and the equivalent level of
functionality in XQuery 1.0. Saxon-SA is the schema-aware version
of the package, and is available as a commercially supported
product from Saxonica Limited.

This package provides the Basic XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 processor.
Includes the command line interfaces and the JAVA APIs; also
includes a standalone XPath API that doesn't depend on JAXP 1.3.

Manual for saxon8.

Javadoc for saxon8.

Demonstrations and samples for saxon8.

Supports XSLT extensions for accessing and updating a
relational database from within a stylesheet.

Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with
JDOM trees. Supports using a JDOM document as the input or
output of transformations and queries. Requires jdom.jar on
the classpath.

Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with
the DOM Document Object Model. Supports using a DOM as the
input or output of transformations and queries, and calling
extension functions that use DOM interfaces to access a
Saxon tree structure. Requires DOM level 3 (dom.jar, part
of JAXP 1.3) to be on the classpath, if not running under
JDK 1.5.

Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with
XOM trees. Supports using a XOM document as the input or
output of transformations and queries. Requires xom.jar on
the classpath.

Provides support for the JAXP 1.3 XPath API. Requires the
JAXP 1.3 version of jaxp-api.jar on the classpath, if not
running under JDK 1.5.

Utility scripts for saxon8.
Comment 1 Matt Wringe 2007-02-14 00:10:46 EST
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons?
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 + ok
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
 X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should
probably be removed.
   Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded   

 - 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.
 + ok
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
 + ok
* specfile name matches %{name}
 + ok
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
   how to generate the the source drop; ie. 
 + ok, link still works and md5sums match
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
 X incorrect 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)
X dist is missing

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps
   the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html?

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
X 
rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl
W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)

 - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed.

* changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Packager tag should not be used
  + ok
* Vendor tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed

* Distribution tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed

* use License and not Copyright
  + ok 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
  + ok
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
  + ok
* specfile is legible
 - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section
* 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
  + ok
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  + ok
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
  + ok
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
 + has a doc package
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 + na
* don't use rpath
 + na
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
 + no config files
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 + not a gui app
* 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
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
 + ok
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
 + no 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
X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc]

* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
  + ok
* %clean should be present
  + ok
* %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
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
X 
rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-*
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 no-documentation
- see comments above about %doc for licenses.
W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives
- can we get around this dangling symlink?
W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-demo no-documentation
W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-dom no-documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
- this should be fixed
W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation
W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql no-documentation
W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xom no-documentation
W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation

Note: group warnings can be ignored.

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock

Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-14 13:08:43 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
>  - match upstream tarball or project name
>  X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility
reasons?
Yes, changelog entries indicates:
- Changed package name for compatibility

>  - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
>  - specfile should be %{name}.spec
>  + ok
>  - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
>    something)
>  X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should
> probably be removed.
Got rid of it. and checked rpmdev-vercmp:
pcheung@to-jpackage1 ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp
Epoch1 :0
Version1 :B.8.7
Release1 :1jpp
Epoch2 :0
Version2 :8.7
Release2 :1jpp.1.fc7
0:8.7-1jpp.1.fc7 is newer
so epoch can stay at 0.
>    Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded   
> 
Added
>  - 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.
>  + ok
> * license is open source-compatible.
>  - use acronyms for licences where common
>  + ok
> * specfile name matches %{name}
>  + ok
> * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
>  - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
>    how to generate the the source drop; ie. 
>  + ok, link still works and md5sums match
>   # svn export blah/tag blah
>   # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
> * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> * correct buildroot
>  X incorrect buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> 
Fixed
> * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
> X dist is missing
Added
> 
> * license text included in package and marked with %doc
> X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps
>    the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html?
> 
done

> * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
> useless?)
> * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
> * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> X 
> rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
> W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl
Added  = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
> W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)
Fixed
> 
>  - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed.
> 
> * changelog should be in one of these formats:
> 
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> - 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
> 
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
> 
>   * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>
>   - 0.6-4
>   - And fix the link syntax.
> 
> * Packager tag should not be used
>   + ok
> * Vendor tag should not be used
> X this needs to be removed
> 
Done

> * Distribution tag should not be used
> X this needs to be removed
> 
Done

> * use License and not Copyright
>   + ok 
> * Summary tag should not end in a period
>   + ok
> * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
>   + ok
> * specfile is legible
>  - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section
> * 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
>   + ok
> * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
> instructions)
>   + ok
> * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> * specfile written in American English
>   + ok
> * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
>  - see
>   
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
>  + has a doc package
> * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
>  + na
> * don't use rpath
>  + na
> * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
>  + no config files
> * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
>  + not a gui app
> * 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
> * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
>  - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
>    end of %install
> * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
>  + ok
> * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
> * package should probably not be relocatable
>  + no 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
> X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc]
> 
Added Requires:jpackage-utils
> * there should be no %files duplicates
> * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
>   + ok
> * %clean should be present
>   + ok
> * %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
> * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> X 
> rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-*
> W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8 no-documentation
> - see comments above about %doc for licenses.
Done
> W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar
/etc/alternatives
> - can we get around this dangling symlink?
I don't think so, let me know if you know of some other way of doing this.

> W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-demo no-documentation
> W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-dom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> - this should be fixed
Got rid of post for javadoc, and versioned dir, %ghost, etc.

> W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-sql no-documentation
> W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-xom no-documentation
> W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
> W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation
> 
> Note: group warnings can be ignored.
> 
> SHOULD:
> * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build on i386
> * package should build in mock
> 
> 
Also added a missing BR of ant.

spec file and srpms can be found at:
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/220/saxon8.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/221/saxon8-8.7-1jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 3 Matt Wringe 2007-02-14 14:31:10 EST
Looks good to me. Approved.

Note: this package was checked using dependencies not yet in rawhide.
Comment 4 Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-03-02 19:03:18 EST
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: saxon8
Short Description: Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation
Owners: vivekl@redhat.com
Branches: devel
InitialCC: vivekl@redhat.com,dbhole@redhat.com
Comment 5 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2007-10-12 22:52:38 EDT
ping?

It looks like this packages was branched in cvs in March and warren set the cvs
done flag to "+" but it has not been imported into the cvs repository or built.
Comment 6 Devrim GUNDUZ 2008-02-09 16:08:07 EST
I would import the srpm, but I cannot find it in the URL given above. Does
anyone has a copy of it?
Comment 7 Adam Goode 2008-07-11 13:22:10 EDT
Probably this should be closed, saxon 9 is out...
Comment 8 Vivek Lakshmanan 2008-07-16 17:50:26 EDT
Retracting review request.
Comment 9 Lubomir Rintel 2009-11-03 06:58:58 EST
Most of comment #2 objections addressed in bug #532664 apart from marking %doc/conditions/intro.html as documentation in the main package. It's doesn't cover the licensing annyway and there's no good reason for duplication it since it is in separate documentation package.

Several other small changes were done, such as changes to summary, description, getting rid sed-ding and unused macros.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 532664 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.