Spec URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/2/xsom.spec SRPM URL: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/2/xsom-20110809-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: XML Schema Object Model (XSOM) is a Java library that allows applications to easily parse XML Schema documents and inspect information in them. It is expected to be useful for applications that need to take XML Schema as an input. The library is a straight-forward implement of "schema components" as defined in the XML Schema spec part 1. Refer to this specification of how this object model works.
Sorry, I don't have time to review this until Tuesday, so I'm temporarily setting it back to "NEW" in case someone else has time before then.
I'll get the first pass done this afternoon.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint xsom.spec ../SRPMS/xsom-20110809-2.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/xsom-* xsom.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: xsom-20110809.tar.gz xsom.src: W: invalid-url Source0: xsom-20110809.tar.gz 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. Version should almost certainly be 0, and the date moved to the release field i.e. Version: 0 Release: 2-20110809%{?dist} [X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [X] Buildroot definition is not present [X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios This should be License: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions instead of: License: CDDL and GPLv2 with exceptions [X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [X] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [X] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. This is pulled from an SVN checkout. [X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [X} Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses. [X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [X] Permissions on files are set properly. [X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [X] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [X] Package uses %global not %define [X] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [X] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building Though I'll comment that I think normal practice is to delete these as part of the %prep rather than during building the tarball. [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap === Maven === [X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro === Other suggestions === [X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [X] Latest version is packaged. === Issues === [!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. Version should almost certainly be 0, and the date moved to the release field i.e. Version: 0 Release: 2-20110809%{?dist} [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios This should be License: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions instead of: License: CDDL and GPLv2 with exceptions I'll take a look at relaxngcc as well since it is a dep.
Thanks for the review David. I fixed the lincense description. I am not 100% sure the version should be 0. Take into account that the source is checked from a tag in the upstream repository named "xsom-20110809". That date is not the date of the checkout but the name of the tag. In addition the original POM file from the upstream repository contains the following: <groupId>com.sun.xsom</groupId> <artifactId>xsom</artifactId> <name>XSOM</name> <version>20110809</version> Apparently the upstream developers use that date to identify the version. However, not been 100% sure, I prepared two updated versions of the package, one with the license fixed but still using the date as version: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/3 The other one with the license fixed and moving the date to the release: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/xsom/0-3.20110809svn Let me know which one do you want to move forward.
Your argument is a good one. Here's my concern: IF upstream ever decides to move away from date based versioning - you will almost certainly have to invoke using epoch - which is very messy. You have a better sense of how upstream operates, and if you think upstream will stick with date-based versioning, I am ok with sticking with that as the version (as opposed to putting the date in the release tag). I don't think version is a blocker, the other issue has been fixed, so this package is: APPROVED
In fact I am not certain what will be the versioning methodology of the upstream project, so I will follow your advice and use the second alternative: moving the date to the release tag.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: xsom Short Description: XML Schema Object Model (XSOM) Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann
Git done (by process-git-requests).
xsom-0-5.20110809svn.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xsom-0-5.20110809svn.fc17
xsom-0-5.20110809svn.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.