Bug 842481 - Review Request: jhighlight - An embeddable pure Java syntax highlighting library
Summary: Review Request: jhighlight - An embeddable pure Java syntax highlighting library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mikolaj Izdebski
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 845834 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-07-24 01:10 UTC by Gerard Ryan
Modified: 2012-08-18 01:30 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-08-18 01:30:35 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mizdebsk: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Gerard Ryan 2012-07-24 01:10:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jhighlight/1.0-1/jhighlight.spec
SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jhighlight/1.0-1/jhighlight-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm

Description:
JHighlight is an embeddable pure Java syntax highlighting library that supports
Java, Groovy, C++, HTML, XHTML, XML and LZX languages and outputs to XHTML. It
also supports RIFE (http://rifers.org) templates tags and highlights them
clearly so that you can easily identify the difference between your RIFE markup
and the actual marked up source.

Fedora Account System Username: galileo

Comment 1 Gerard Ryan 2012-07-25 12:42:55 UTC
The lgpl text that was in this package, not from the tarball, has been removed.

Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jhighlight/1.0-2/jhighlight.spec
SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jhighlight/1.0-2/jhighlight-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-07-25 14:45:35 UTC
jhighlight-1.0/lib in SRPM contains some bundled libraries.
Notably jflex-1.4.1.jar is licensed under GPLv2, but there are
no sources included. Please remove bundled jars from the SRPM
before I can take the review.

Comment 4 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-07-25 21:41:30 UTC
I am taking this review.

Comment 5 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-07-27 07:10:07 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated


==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: MUST Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


==== Java ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct %add_maven_depmap call.
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
     jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jhighlight-javadoc-1.0-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
          jhighlight-1.0-3.fc18.src.rpm
          jhighlight-1.0-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
jhighlight-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jhighlight-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jhighlight-javadoc-1.0/LICENSE_LGPL.txt
jhighlight.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded
jhighlight.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedded
jhighlight.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jhighlight-1.0.tar.xz
jhighlight.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded
jhighlight.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedded
jhighlight.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jhighlight-1.0/LICENSE_LGPL.txt
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.

Tested on Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4334798

Comment 6 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-08-05 22:40:07 UTC
*** Bug 845834 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Gerard Ryan 2012-08-05 23:26:03 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jhighlight
Short Description: An embeddable pure Java syntax highlighting library
Owners: galileo
Branches: f17
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-08-06 04:36:51 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-08-06 15:36:25 UTC
jhighlight-1.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jhighlight-1.0-3.fc17

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-08-09 23:16:33 UTC
jhighlight-1.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-08-18 01:30:35 UTC
jhighlight-1.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.


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