Bug 227126 - Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser
Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nuno Santos
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 13:02 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-12 11:23:27 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
jjohnstn: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 13:02:01 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.src.rpm
Description: XML Pull Parser 2 (XPP2) is a simple and fast incremental XML parser.
NOTE: XPP2 is no longer developed and is on maintenance mode.
All active developement concentrates on its successor XPP3/MXP1

Javadoc for xpp2.

Manual for xpp2.

Samples for xpp2.
Comment 1 Jeff Johnston 2007-02-12 14:00:23 EST
MUST:

X specfile should be %{name}.spec
X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
X change license to ASL
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
 - %doc not used
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d

X Vendor tag should not be used
X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period.
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
X manual subpackage should be renamed doc
X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package
  - should just be moved outside comment
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
[jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
[jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-demo no-documentation
W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
[jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
[jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build in mock
Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-13 11:23:45 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> MUST:
> 
> X specfile should be %{name}.spec
it is xpp2.spec currently
> X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist}
release is now 6jpp.1%{?dist}
> X change license to ASL
rpmlint doesn't like ASL, it's now Apache Software License
> X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
>  - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec
I checked the md5sum, and they are the same, could you please check again?
Here's what I've done:
[pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ wget
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz
--10:29:51-- 
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz
Resolving www.extreme.indiana.edu... 129.79.246.105
Connecting to www.extreme.indiana.edu|129.79.246.105|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 2310288 (2.2M) [application/x-tar]
Saving to: `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1'
 
100%[=======================================>] 2,310,288    168K/s   in 14s
 
10:30:06 (156 KB/s) - `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1' saved [2310288/2310288]
 
[pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum PullParser2.1.10.tgz
865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f  PullParser2.1.10.tgz
[pcheung@to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum ~/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz
865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f  /home/pcheung/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz


> X correct buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed
> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
>  - %doc not used
Fixed
> X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> 
> W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
Fixed
> W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
That's ok
> W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
Fixed -ASL
> E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d
> 
I'm not seeing this error on the rpms
> X Vendor tag should not be used
got rid of Vendor and Distrition.
> X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period.
Fixed.
> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> X manual subpackage should be renamed doc
done
> X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package
>   - should just be moved outside comment
Moved license and readme back into main package and mark all docs %doc
> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
> W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development
Fixed
> W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
That's ok
> W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
Fixed
> [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
> W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation
That's OK
> W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style
Fixed
> W: xpp2-demo no-documentation
There's no doc for that subpackage
> W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
Fixed
> [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
> W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style
> W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
Fixed
> [jjohnstn@vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm 
> W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style
> W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
> 
Fixed
> SHOULD:
> X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build in mock

built fine in mock, the only rpmlint warnings from the src and binary rpms left are:
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-doc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: xpp2-demo no-documentation

which should be OK.
Comment 4 Jeff Johnston 2007-02-13 14:10:13 EST
Approved.
Comment 5 Nuno Santos 2007-02-21 16:49:13 EST
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xpp2
Short Description: XML Pull Parser
Owners: nsantos@redhat.com
Branches:
InitialCC: rafaels@redhat.com,dbhole@redhat.com
Comment 6 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 18:49:22 EDT
Pardon the bugzilla spam.  This package appears to have been approved, imported,
and built.

If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented
in the package review process:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess?#head-df921556b35438a4c78b4b6a790151ea568e8f9e

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