Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xom-1.0-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Description: XOM is a new XML object model. It is an open source (LGPL), tree-based API for processing XML with Java that strives for correctness, simplicity, and performance, in that order. XOM is designed to be easy to learn and easy to use. It works very straight-forwardly, and has a very shallow learning curve. Assuming you're already familiar with XML, you should be able to get up and running with XOM very quickly. Javadoc for xom. Samples for xom.
xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - 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 OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * 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. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc: %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d -- OK * 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. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement ?? * 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 OK * 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 OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar} `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * 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 SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc: %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt -- ?? * package should build on i386 NO * package should build in mock -- Cannot find build req tagsoup. Exiting. --
Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? Yes. > ?? - OSI-approved It's LGPL so yes. > ?? - is it covered by patents? I don't think there's much we can do here. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) I've verified the md5sum. > NO * correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) I've added %{?dist} > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc Fixed. > NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > > W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Fixed. > E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d This was just because you didn't have the JPackage GPG on your system. > NO * Vendor tag should not be used Removed. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 Done. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar} > `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) I think this is fine. > ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs I think they're fine. > ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-demo-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm W: xom-demo no-documentation I think this can be ignored. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm > NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc Fixed. > ?? * package should build on i386 It does for me. I think you'll have to wait to verify until other packages are built. > NO * package should build in mock I can't try until saxon is done, but I'm confident it will work.
I removed the saxon BR and it built fine. Let's assume we don't need it :) Updated spec and SRPM (saxon dep removed): http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xom-1.0-3jpp Short Description: XML Pull Parser Owners: nsantos Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels,dbhole
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xom New Branches: EL-6 Owners: lkundrak I have a package that depends on this. I mailed the maintainer, but he orphaned the package in devel and forwarded the message to dbhole. He neither picked the package in Fedora yet, nor responded yet. I'll be very happy to pass maintainership of the branch to him if he expressed will to take care of it. Mail date header (of the response cced to dbhole, not my original message): Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:05:46 -0400 (07/12/2010 11:05:46 PM)
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).