Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 227127 - Review Request: xpp3- - XML Pull Parser
Summary: Review Request: xpp3- - XML Pull Parser
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nuno Santos
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-02-02 18:02 UTC by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 23:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-04-12 15:23:09 UTC
mwringe: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Fixed spec file (deleted)
2007-02-12 22:08 UTC, Fernando Nasser
no flags Details

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 18:02:27 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Xml Pull Parser 3rd Edition (XPP3) MXP1 is a new XmlPull
parsing engine that is based on ideas from XPP and in
particular XPP2 but completely revised and rewritten to
take best advantage of latest JIT JVMs such as Hotspot in JDK 1.4.

Minimal XML pull parser implementation.

Javadoc for xpp3.

Comment 1 Matt Wringe 2007-02-12 20:26:59 UTC
RPMLint Issues:
rpmlint xpp3-
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
E: xpp3 non-utf8-spec-file xpp3.spec

rpmlint xpp3-*
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
E: xpp3-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
W: xpp3-minimal non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xpp3-minimal tag-not-utf8 %changelog
W: xpp3-minimal invalid-license Apache Software License -style
W: xpp3-minimal no-documentation

* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or

X the "o" in the release looks to come from a release, as such it should
  be part of the version (see the naming guidelines). Since this is jpp
  package, it should also include %{?dist} at the end of the release. It also
  needs to contain the fedora release.

 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
 - 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.
X this package is actually a BSD style license

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
* 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. 
  # 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 %
X dist needs to be added since jpp

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
* packages meets FHS (
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
X Many issues listed at top

* changelog should be in one of these formats:

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

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

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

* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
X Vendor and distribution tag should be removed

* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
X javadoc linking needs to be changed to the remove rm/ln from the post and
posun javadoc sections

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
X will check on mock when other issues are resolved
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
* Requires are proper
X This package should at least require java

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* 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
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %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 Many issues listed at top

* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
X will check on mock when current issues are resolved

Comment 2 Fernando Nasser 2007-02-12 22:07:21 UTC

Comment 3 Fernando Nasser 2007-02-12 22:08:24 UTC
Created attachment 147940 [details]
Fixed spec file

Comment 4 Fernando Nasser 2007-02-12 22:18:22 UTC
Removed weird release.

Checked License (Apache-style)

Waiting for Buildroot discussions conclusion on fedora-packaging

fedora release appended

Removed vendor and distribution tags

Requires java and jpackage-utils

Comment 5 Deepak Bhole 2007-02-15 02:04:13 UTC
Fixed spec and srpm:

Fixed license to BSD-style
Added req for java and jpackage-utils
Fixed file encoding
Fixed doc linking

Comment 6 Matt Wringe 2007-02-15 04:28:03 UTC
rpmlint on binary rpms:
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp3-minimal non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
W: xpp3-minimal no-documentation
X xpp3-minimal should have the licensing docs

rpmlint on source rpm:
W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
+ ok

One other note, the minimal package is missing requires

Comment 7 Deepak Bhole 2007-02-15 17:52:18 UTC

Fixed requirements

Comment 8 Matt Wringe 2007-02-16 01:50:56 UTC

Comment 9 Nuno Santos 2007-02-21 21:35:06 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: xpp3-
Short Description: XML Pull Parser
Branches: FC-7

Comment 10 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:48:43 UTC
Pardon the bugzilla spam.  This package appears to have been approved, imported,
and built.

If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented
in the package review process:

Comment 11 Lubomir Rintel 2010-07-19 09:54:37 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: xpp3
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: lkundrak

I have a package that depends on this. I mailed the maintainer, but he orphaned the package in devel and forwarded the message to dbhole. He neither picked the package in Fedora yet, nor responded yet. I'll be very happy to pass maintainership of the branch to him if he expressed will to take care of it.

Mail date header (of the response cced to dbhole, not my original message): Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:05:46 -0400 (07/12/2010 11:05:46 PM)

Comment 12 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-20 03:12:58 UTC
CVS done (by

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.