[Bug 502991] Review Request: erlang-erlsom - Support for XML Schema in Erlang

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502991


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-05 17:25:19 EDT ---
Builds fine; rpmlint says the following:
  erlang-erlsom.x86_64: E: no-binary
  erlang-erlsom.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
which are normal for erlang packages.

The spec does not consistently use macros; in some places, macro-ized forms
like "%{__rm}" are used, while elsewhere plain non-macro versions are used. 
This must be consistent; personally I see no benefit in the extra typing from
using "%{__rm}" but you can use what you like.

The license is definitely not GPLv2+.  Most files seem to be LGPLv3+, but
erlsom_sax_lib.erl is GPLv2+.  This would seem to imply that the whole is
GPLv3+, but you should check with upstream to see what they intend.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                  
   414b342f58ae0d35e612914223fa4b24355ede2f6586a53efbe73791a5dab3e3
   erlsom-1.2.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named.
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12
   erlang-erlsom = 1.2.1-3.fc12
   erlang-erlsom(x86-64) = 1.2.1-3.fc12
  =
   erlang

* %check is present, no test suite upstream.  I've no idea how to test this.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.