[Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 13 16:23:58 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126
pcheung at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:23 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 at 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 at to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum PullParser2.1.10.tgz
865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f PullParser2.1.10.tgz
[pcheung at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list