Spec URL: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/269/xmlunit.spec SRPM URL: http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/SRPMS/xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.src.rpm Description: XMLUnit extends JUnit to simplify unit testing of XML. It compares a control XML document to a test document or the result of a transformation, validates documents against a DTD, and (from v0.5) compares the results of XPath expressions.
This package doesn't build for me on FC6. I don't know about rawhide. docs: [mkdir] Created dir: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/xmlunit/doc [javadoc] Generating Javadoc [javadoc] Javadoc execution [javadoc] java.lang.RuntimeException: Cannot read file specified in option -overview: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/xmlunit/src/java/overview.html (No such file or directory) [javadoc] at gnu.classpath.tools.gjdoc.Main$20.process(gnu-classpath-tools-gjdoc-0.7.7.jar.so) [javadoc] at gnu.classpath.tools.gjdoc.Main.readOptions(gnu-classpath-tools-gjdoc-0.7.7.jar.so) [javadoc] at gnu.classpath.tools.gjdoc.Main.start(gnu-classpath-tools-gjdoc-0.7.7.jar.so) [javadoc] at gnu.classpath.tools.gjdoc.Main.main(gnu-classpath-tools-gjdoc-0.7.7.jar.so) The RPM fails to find the javadocs when it tries to bundle things up.
Fixed the javadoc issues, added missing BR, fix classpath and some other rpmlint issues. Please review, spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/295/xmlunit.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/296/xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.src.rpm
MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - 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 OK * 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 OK * 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. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Ok, md5sums match * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X The summary is a little unclear. It should probably be something more like "Unit Testing framework for XML" * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK, appears to put everything in the proper locations. * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output X rpmlint xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.src.rpm W: xmlunit non-standard-group Development/Testing W: xmlunit invalid-license BSD Style Software License The "Software License" part of the license should be removed to get rid of the rpmlint warning. The group warning can be ignored * changelog should be in the proper format OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * 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 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK, looks good to me * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X doesn't build * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here X doesn't build in mock - 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 X summary should probably be changed (see above) * 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 X should the pdf be part of a manual package? * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK, I do not believe this package has any config files * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK, not a GUI app * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK, it doesn't need one * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * 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 OK * 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 * 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 can't build package SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock I will finish the review once the package can be built
(In reply to comment #3) > X The summary is a little unclear. It should probably be something more like > "Unit Testing framework for XML" Done > * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > X rpmlint xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.src.rpm > W: xmlunit non-standard-group Development/Testing > W: xmlunit invalid-license BSD Style Software License > > The "Software License" part of the license should be removed to get rid of the > rpmlint warning. Done > X doesn't build > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > X doesn't build in mock > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > X summary should probably be changed (see above) > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) Done > X should the pdf be part of a manual package? Since there's only 1 pdf file, it should be ok to stay in there. > X can't build package > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 > * package should build in mock > > I will finish the review once the package can be built > I think we need to wait for mock on to-fcjpp1 to sync up with the latest java-1.5.0-gcj. Spec file and SRPM at the same location.
Ok, the package now builds in mock. rpmlint xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: xmlunit non-standard-group Development/Testing rpmlint xmlunit-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm W: xmlunit non-standard-group Development/Testing rpmlint xmlunit-javadoc-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm W: xmlunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The rpmlint group warnings can be ignored. SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock OK This package now looks good to me, APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xmlunit Short Description: Unit Testing framework for XML Owners: pcheung Branches: devel
Has this package been built into CVS yet?
Yes, it's built.
Closing as RAWHIDE