[Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation

Wed Feb 14 05:10:58 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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java  Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115

------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com  2007-02-14 00:10 EST -------
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons?
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 + ok
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
 X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should
probably be removed.
   Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded   

 - 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
* 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
* 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. 
 + ok, link still works and md5sums match
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
 X incorrect buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X dist is missing

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps
   the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html?

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
X 
rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl
W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)

 - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed.

* changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Packager tag should not be used
  + ok
* Vendor tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed

* Distribution tag should not be used
X this needs to be removed

* 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
 - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - 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
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  + ok
* 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
 + has a doc package
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 + na
* don't use rpath
 + na
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
 + no config files
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 + not a gui app
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
 + ok
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
 + no relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc]

* 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 
rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-*
W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8 no-documentation
- see comments above about %doc for licenses.
W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives
- can we get around this dangling symlink?
W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-demo no-documentation
W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-dom no-documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
- this should be fixed
W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation
W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-sql no-documentation
W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xom no-documentation
W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation

Note: group warnings can be ignored.

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

-- 
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.