Bug 233004 - Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation
Review Request: xmlrpc3 - Java XML-RPC implementation
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Thomas Fitzsimmons
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On: 232719 232728
Blocks: 232725
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-03-19 16:35 EDT by Andrew Overholt
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-01 11:56:10 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
fitzsim: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Andrew Overholt 2007-03-19 16:35:58 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3-3.0-1jpp.1.src.rpm
Description: 
Apache XML-RPC is a Java implementation of XML-RPC, a popular protocol
that uses XML over HTTP to implement remote procedure calls.
Apache XML-RPC was previously known as Helma XML-RPC. If you have code
using the Helma library, all you should have to do is change the import
statements in your code from helma.xmlrpc.* to org.apache.xmlrpc.*.

Note:  This package is parallel-installable with xmlrpc-2.x.  There are projects that explicitly depend upon xmlrpc-2.x so we are creating this secondary xmlrpc package that could become xmlrpc in the future.  The project has changed so drastically between 2.x and 3.0 that I felt this necessary.
Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2007-03-20 09:59:44 EDT
There is now a maven2 bootstrap package built.  The main package is still
building ATM but I think we're good to go with dependencies now.
Comment 2 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-20 11:42:24 EDT
MUST:
? package is named appropriately

  - I guess the major version is included in the name because 3
    breaks compatibility with the version 2 series?

* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* source and patches verified
* summary and description okay
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* 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

  - change the non-standard groups in the subpackages

* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License and not Copyright used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible

  - remove the unneeded Epoch line

  - fix the Buildroot tag

? package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

  - can't check without maven2, which hasn't hit Rawhide yet: I'll trust you to
    build this into plague, where it will be available

* BuildRequires are proper
* summary is a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary

  - not in the case of subpackages which simply reference the summary, but for
    these specific subpackages I think it's fine

* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* -doc sub-package

  - javadoc subpackage OK

* no static libs
* no rpath
* config files should marked with %config(noreplace)
* not a GUI app
* sub-packages fine
* macros used appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* Requires(pre,post) fine
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
X no %files duplicates

  - LICENSE.txt duplicates across subpackages

X file permissions okay; %defattrs present

  - '-', not explicit permissions

* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a webapp
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs

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

  - will leave these last two up to you, since maven2 is available in plague
Comment 3 Andrew Overholt 2007-03-20 11:56:24 EDT
Updated SRPM and spec:

http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3.spec
http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/xmlrpc3-3.0-1jpp.1.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #2)
> ? package is named appropriately
> 
>   - I guess the major version is included in the name because 3
>     breaks compatibility with the version 2 series?

Yes.

> X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> 
>   - change the non-standard groups in the subpackages

Groups aren't a blocker, but I've fixed them anyway.
 
> X specfile is legible
> 
>   - remove the unneeded Epoch line
> 
>   - fix the Buildroot tag

Done and done.
 
> X no %files duplicates
> 
>   - LICENSE.txt duplicates across subpackages

I thought sub-packages should all contain it, but I've removed it from all but
-common.
 
> X file permissions okay; %defattrs present
> 
>   - '-', not explicit permissions

Okay.
Comment 4 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-20 12:03:45 EDT
APPROVED
Comment 5 Andrew Overholt 2007-03-20 12:06:14 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xmlrpc3
Short Description: Apache XML-RPC is a Java implementation of XML-RPC.
Owners: overholt@redhat.com
Branches: devel
InitialCC: 
Comment 6 Andrew Overholt 2007-04-01 11:56:10 EDT
This is available in rawhide.

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