[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||tidyp-1.02-2.fc15 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2010-09-22 08:50:13 --- Comment #11 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-09-22 08:50:13 EDT --- Imported and built in Rawhide. tidyp-1.04 was released recently but is a bit of a brown paper bag release so I'm waiting on there being another upstream release before updating and building for the stable branches. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2010-09-17 12:09:31 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2010-09-14 19:28:46 EDT --- In the meantime, I can help review this too. (and many thanks for the pre-review done by Tom in comment #1 ) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2010-09-14 19:45:56 EDT --- $ rpmlint *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm tidyp.src: E: unknown-key GPG#b56a8bac libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tidyp - tidy, tidy p, tidily libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tidyp - tidy, tidy p, tidily libtidyp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtidyp-1.02.so.0.0.0 e...@glibc_2.2.5 libtidyp.x86_64: W: no-documentation libtidyp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tidyp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidyp 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. sources: OK $ md5sum *.gz 4fc6f0ba8fb1e2ffafbf8f5963f58969 tidyp-1.02.tar.gz license: ok (copyright notice in tidyp.h) dependencies: ok installs, uninstalls cleanly Looks mm, mm good to me. APPROVED. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 --- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-08-06 11:01:22 EDT --- It wasn't too hard to get these to build with libtidyp. I built the packages with libtidy, tweaked them to use libtidyp instead and put the results here: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/tidyp/tidy-dependents/ I didn't do perl-HTML-Tidy as the current upstream version of that *requires* libtidyp and won't work with plain libtidy because it accesses a library version number API that libtidy doesn't have. I'd describe the tweaks for building with libtidyp as proof-of-concept rather than something that could go upstream as I imagine the upstreams would want to maintain compatibility with libtidy as well as supporting builds with libtidyp. I've only tested that building works and haven't tested that the packages actually run correctly, except for python-tidy where I first tweaked the package to run its test suite in %check for the original libtidy version and then verified that it still passed after patching to use libtidyp. I've asked for upstream's opinion on migrating all of these packages over to libtidyp but haven't had a response yet. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2010-07-26 12:11:48 EDT --- $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --alldeps --whatrequires libtidy ... gurlchecker-0:0.10.1-13.fc12.x86_64 konq-plugins-0:4.4.0-3.fc14.x86_64 libtidy-0:0.99.0-20.20091203.fc13.x86_64 libtidy-devel-0:0.99.0-20.20091203.fc13.x86_64 mulk-0:0.4.1-3.fc12.x86_64 perl-HTML-Tidy-0:1.08-7.fc14.x86_64 php-tidy-0:5.3.3-1.fc14.x86_64 python-tidy-0:0.2-7.fc12.noarch tidy-0:0.99.0-20.20091203.fc13.x86_64 Of those, the the only ones worth caring about are (probably), gurlchecker konq-plugins mulk php-tidy -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2010-07-25 14:28:00 EDT --- Being maintainer of tidy, I can agree with the frustrations around lack of releases. I'd be more than happy with simply replacing tidy with tidyp in the distro, if this indeed fully api compatible, if that's agreeable with you. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524
Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom_atkin...@fsfe.org
--- Comment #1 from Tom Atkinson tom_atkin...@fsfe.org 2010-07-24 11:12:20
EDT ---
Informal pre-review:
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tidyp - tidy, tidy p, tidily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tidyp - tidy, tidy p,
tidily
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtidyp-1.02.so.0.0.0
e...@glibc_2.2.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.
libtidyp.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
libtidyp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
tidyp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tidyp
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Spelling issue - can be ignored as it is intentional
Shared libs issue - you should probably check that with upstream
Missing docs - to come in future
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK - W3C
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
OK
# 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 must be included in %doc.
OK - Source package does not include the license text
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK - md5sum matches
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK - successful scratch build on i686 and x86_64
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK - no ExcludeArch
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK - No BuildRequires listed, no missing build deps encountered.
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK - No locales
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - ldconfig called in %post and %postun
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
OK - not relocatable
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that
[Bug 617524] Review Request: tidyp - Clean up and pretty-print HTML/XHTML/XML
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=617524 --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2010-07-24 15:22:54 EDT --- The exit() call is from the default out-of-memory panic handler, though this can be avoided for applications that want to by supplying a custom panic handler callback. This is described in include/tidyp.h. So, I think that shouldn't be a big issue. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
