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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

fitzsim@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fitzsim@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

bugzilla@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora

tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| |

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2007-06-21 16:44 EST ------- Clearing FE-NEW since this is under review, although it's been an awfully long time without any review comments.

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2007-10-15 14:05 EST ------- Updated to the new upstream release: http://langel.fedorapeople.org/fop/fop.spec http://langel.fedorapeople.org/fop/fop-0.94-1.src.rpm

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2007-11-22 16:49 EST ------- - rpmlint:

$ rpmlint fop-0.94-1.src.rpm

$ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/fop-0.94-1.noarch.rpm fop.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fop-0.94.jar

The Class-Path field in this manifest is added by fop-manifest.patch, but it should not be:

$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/fop-0.94-1.noarch.rpm fop.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fop-0.94.jar The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path. These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work, they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises.

- package name fine

- spec file name matches package name

- package meets packaging guidelines

The BuildRoot line is non-standard.

- package meets licensing guidelines

- license field matches actual license

- license marked %doc

- spec file uses American English

- spec file legible

%define section devel

Remove the top two lines.

(cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}*; do ln -sf ${jar} `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done)

This should be done as a pushd/popd block. In general, spec file lines should wrap at the 80th column.

- source and upstream md5sum match

- package builds successfully on i386

- all build requirements listed

No, none are listed.

- no locales

- no shared libraries for ldconfig

- not relocatable

- directories: - owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and %{_datadir}/fop, which it creates - requires jpackage-utils for %{_javadir} into which it installs jar files

- no duplicate files

- permissions

Replace 0644 and 0755 in the %defattr lines with - to use the default values.

- %clean section fine

- consistent use of macros

- contains code

- doc subpackage

- docs don't affect runtime

- no header files

- no static libraries

- no pkgconfig files

- no library files

- no devel package

- no .la files

- no desktop files

- doesn't own other packages' directories

- removes buildroot at start of %install

- filenames valid UTF-8

- license text included

- no description/summary translations available

- builds in mock on i386

No. Missing BuildRequires lines cause the build to fail.

- other architectures not tested, but this is a noarch package

- did not test proper functioning, since fop requires batik

- no scriptlets

- javadoc package doesn't require base package -- fine

- no pkgconfig files

- packages required, rather than individual files

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2007-11-23 16:21 EST ------- With:

export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-icedtea

in the build environment, I can build with rpmbuild on i386.

When I try /usr/bin/fop, I get this:

$ /usr/bin/fop Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/commons/logging/LogFactory at org.apache.fop.apps.FopFactory.<clinit>(FopFactory.java:63) at org.apache.fop.cli.CommandLineOptions.<init>(CommandLineOptions.java:100) at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.startFOP(Main.java:153) at org.apache.fop.cli.Main.main(Main.java:196) Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: org.apache.commons.logging.LogFactory at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:220) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:208) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:323) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:294) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:268) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClassInternal(ClassLoader.java:336) ... 4 more

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2007-11-26 13:08 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=269141) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=269141&action=view) Fixed wrapper script.

/usr/bin/fop failed on startup due to the classpath issues you mentioned. Here is an updated wrapper script that handles all the classpath setup.

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

Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

------- Additional Comments From langel@redhat.com 2007-11-26 13:16 EST ------- Thanks

Uploaded the new spec file and srpm. http://langel.fedorapeople.org/fop/fop.spec http://langel.fedorapeople.org/fop/fop-0.94-1.src.rpm

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

Summary: Review Request: fop - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

kevin@tummy.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: fop-0.20.5- |Review Request: fop - XSL- |9jpp - XSL-driven print |driven print formatter |formatter | Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-11-26 23:01 EST ------- (corrected the Summary to have just the package name in it, you shouldn't put versions in there).

cvs done.

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

Summary: Review Request: fop - XSL-driven print formatter

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055

bugzilla@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide

alexl@users.sourceforge.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexl@users.sourceforge.net

------- Additional Comments From alexl@users.sourceforge.net 2008-01-16 20:52 EST ------- Can we please have an update pushed to the F-8 branch via bodhi? Thanks.