xmlfy - submit package to Fedora

Contributors preliminary check with the package review guidelines

NOTE: This is not the official review of the package.

Guideline revision: 0.27

MUST Items:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
xmlfy rpmlint reports no errors or warnings.

root@localhost:/var/tmp # rpmlint xmlfy-1.4.3-1.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
root@localhost:/var/tmp # rpmlint xmlfy-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
root@localhost:/var/tmp # rpmlint xmlfy-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
root@localhost:/var/tmp # rpmlint xmlfy.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
xmlfy - A five letter word comprised entirely of lowercase alphabetic letters. An artificial word that does not exist in the English dictionary. Derived from the conjunction of the pronoun "XML" and the common adjective modifier "fy" to create the quasi-etymological verb "xmlfy" which infers to the act of creating XML, as in pure and purify.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
No exemption necessary.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Significant effort has been made to meet the requirements of the Packaging Guidelines, feedback is now sought.
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
The package uses the BSD license.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
The licenses match.
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.
The package spec file uses a %doc reference to a file called LICENSE.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
The author is Australian and realiZes the Queen's butler's English is not appropriate in this situation.
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
The author is just hopeless at winning obscure and esoteric contests.
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.
The source RPM for Fedora is provided by a build target from the authors original source.
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
The package compiles and builds into several formats and architectures including binary i386 Linux RPMs.
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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
The package compiles and builds on the architectures it has been tested on so far, this means Linux i386. Even though the package also builds into native packages for other platforms like Sun and Apple, I don't have the resources to identify architectures where the package fails. The package was conceived with portability as a goal from the start.
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.
The package does not use build dependencies.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
The package does not cater for language translations (locales).
MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is:
The package does not package shared libraries.
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.
The package does not specify the "Prefix:" option.
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 directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
The package does not create any directories outside the FHS.
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
The package does not contain duplicate files in the "%files" listing.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
The package sets permission correctly.
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
Verbatim.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
The package uses macros as recommended in the Packaging Guidelines.
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
The package is pure code.
MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
The package does not have large documentation.
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
Tested successfully.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
The package does not provide developer header files.
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
The package does not provide static libraries.
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
The package does not use pkgconfig(.pc) files.
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
The package does not contain library files.
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
The package is not a devel package and has no dependency on devel packages.
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
The package does not contain lib archives.
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
The package does not contain GUI applications.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
The package makes no attempt to modify the permissions of files and directories owned by other packages.
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
Verbatim.
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
All filenames used can also be represented in ASCII form.

SHOULD Items:

SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
The source package does include a license text as a separate file from upstream.
SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Although the author is only fluent in two languages, no translations are available.
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.
Not tested.
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
The package compiles and builds into binary RPMs on the architectures it has been tested on so far.
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
The package source also includes a comprehensive test harness to identify any runtime issues.
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
The package does not use scriptlets.
SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
The package is not a subpackage.
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
The package does not use pkgconfig(.pc) files.
SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information.
The package has no file dependencies outside the abovementioned directories.

More Information

Fedora package submission proposal

Spec file

Source RPM

Binary RPM derived from the above source RPM

Other files

Contributors preliminary check with the package review guidelines