[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 |tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 |tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-08-10 06:11:04 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com Summary|Review Request: Tinyxpath - |Review Request: tinyxpath - |Small footprint XPath |Small footprint XPath |syntax decoder |syntax decoder -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: 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 %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated, zlib/libpng. 1 files have unknown
license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
OK: both warnings are fine (devel subpackage must be arched, no API docs)
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 nobra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from nobra...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: tinyxpath Short Description: Small XPath syntax decoder Upstream URL: http://tinyxpath.sourceforge.net/ Owners: nobrakal Branches: f21 f22 f23 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
--- Comment #3 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Great, good work. :-)
More issues (not noticed before or in the new changes):
10) linking
- I would rather not include the main.o file in the library (I guess the
'main' symbol will be problematic)
- also there is missing -ltinyxml: it will add the automatic dependency on the
tinyxml library and fix undefined-non-weak-symbol errors from rpmlint
Something like?:
g++ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -shared -o lib%{name}.so.0.1 \
-Wl,-soname,lib%{name}.so.0.1 `ls *.o | grep -v main.o` -ltinyxml
11) why is ./tinyxpath called twice in the %check? It works OK though.
12) installing AUTHORS manually is not needed, %doc macro in %file will pick it
automatically
(or in case of manual installation it would be better _pkgdocdir macro)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
13) devel subpackage could have also runtime require on tinyxml-devel package
...because tinyxpath headers includes headers from tinyxml.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 --- Comment #4 from nobra...@gmail.com --- Hi, Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22.src.rpm 10) Right, btw the main.cpp seem only contain the test code for the executable. 11) Corrected 12) Corrected 13) tinyxml-devel is now a Requires of tinyxpath-devel (One library to rule them all, One library to find them, One library to bring them all and in the darkness bind them) Thank you again for your great review :D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
--- Comment #2 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec
SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
Hi,
Thank you for your reply :D (and yes, tinyxml is my pet peeve)
So,
1) License file
The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Reported: https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/feature-requests/3/
2) Done
3) shared library versioning
See the link:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1.
Done, I use 1 instead of %{version} on the contrary of the doc... Because
%{version} is very long (1.3.1)
4)
Done
5)
The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it
could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check).
Corrected with a patch, seems like a bug, reported
https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/support-requests/7/
6) Corrected
7) Corrected
8) Corrected, I've removed the out-of-date rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
9) Corrected, you're right ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379
--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
It's funny opencity unbundled the tinyxml from tinyxpath and bundle it itself.
:-) Good catch.
Issues found:
1) License file
Currently it is used the link created automatically by automake, which points
to GPL license file. But the license is zlib and source code doesn't contain
text license.
libpng/zlib license doesn't require separate license text file distributed with
the sources/binaries, so it is not show-stopper for Fedora packaging and you
can just remove the wrong link.
The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
2) AUTHORS
This file can be included in the package documentation.
3) shared library versioning
See the link:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning
The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1.
4) libxpath.so* files are in both packages (tinyxpath, tinyxpath-devel), the
*.so file (the link) should be in -devel, the other files in the main package.
Something like:
%files
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0.*
%files devel
%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
5) tinyxpath binary is more like test and example code, it is not needed to
include it in the tinyxpath package
By the way you can add %check section and use tinyxpath binary there. :-) It
always returns zero exit code, but the out.htm file will contain some em html
tags in case of errors. So the section could look like this?:
%check
./tinyxpath
grep -q 'em' out.htm false
The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it
could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check).
6) fedora-review complains about requirement of -devel on the base package:
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
tinyxpath-devel
There is just missing the %{?_isa}.
7) 'Requires: tinyxml' not needed, dependencies on the libraries are generated
automagically by rpmbuild scripts.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires .
8) fedora-review complains about mixing of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
9) cosmetic (you can ignore): I would move the %post and %postun sections
before the %file section. This is just cosmetic and I should probably not even
mention it here. But because of atypical placing my first impression was the
%post/%postun sections are not there. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Blocks||1193990 Depends On|1193990 | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 [Bug 1193990] Review Request: opencity - Full 3D city simulator game project -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1243379] Review Request: Tinyxpath - Small footprint XPath syntax decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243379 nobra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1193990 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 [Bug 1193990] Review Request: opencity - Full 3D city simulator game project -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
