The docs seem to be copied to %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}
instead of being copied into %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}.
They shouldn't be copied manually; just use %doc in %files section.

rpmlint is complaining about non-standard Groups.  The main package should
probably be System/Libraries and the other ones can be Development or something
like that.

(In reply to comment #1)
> The docs seem to be copied to %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}
> instead of being copied into %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}.
> They shouldn't be copied manually; just use %doc in %files section.

ok, I changed this to use the %doc section.

> rpmlint is complaining about non-standard Groups.  The main package should
> probably be System/Libraries and the other ones can be Development or something
> like that.

We have always been told that the rpmlint group warnings should just be ignored.
(see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html)
The groups have been updated to get rid of this warning though,

One other change I made to the spec file, I had the wrong license listed. The
package has components under different licenses (Apache, w3c and public domain).
These have been listed as "License: Apache Software License/W3C License/Public
Domain" in the spec file. rpmlint will complain about this situation.

Updated files located here:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/272/xml-commons-apis12.spec
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/271/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.src.rpm

Please remove the second BuildRoot.

What is epocj in ...
Provides:       %{name}-apis-javadoc = %{epocj}:%{apis_version_1_2}
?

The %setup section includes...

# remove all binary libs and prebuilt javadocs
rm -rf `find . -name "*.jar" -o -name "*.gz"`

The sources don't include any .jar or .gz files, so I think this could be removed.

Are we adding Red Hat copyright notices to these files (seeing as JPP has them).

I think this should be ready to go once these are taken care of / answered.

Thanks!

(In reply to comment #3)
> Please remove the second BuildRoot.

removed
 
> What is epocj in ...
> Provides:       %{name}-apis-javadoc = %{epocj}:%{apis_version_1_2}
> ?

oops, spelling mistake, change to epoch

> The %setup section includes...
> 
> # remove all binary libs and prebuilt javadocs
> rm -rf `find . -name "*.jar" -o -name "*.gz"`
> 
> The sources don't include any .jar or .gz files, so I think this could be removed.

removed

> Are we adding Red Hat copyright notices to these files (seeing as JPP has them).
I don't think I have seen them outside of the jpp packages.
> 
> I think this should be ready to go once these are taken care of / answered.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
New Files uploaded there:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/285/xml-commons-apis12.spec
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/286/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.src.rpm

Here's the full review.  This package is APPROVED.  Thanks!

* package meets and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* License text included in package.
* source files match upstream (extracted from upstream svn so no md5sum available.)
* latest version is being packaged (well, the latest 1.2 version).
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.

* rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04-0jpp.1.i386.rpm 
W: xml-commons-apis12 invalid-license Apache Software License/W3C License/Public
Domain
We can ignore this.  Similarly for other xml-commons-api12 packages.

* final provides and requires are sane:
  dom = 2
  jaxp = 1.2
  sax = 2.0.1
  xml-commons-apis = 1.2
  xml-commons-apis12-1.2.04.jar.so
  xslt = 1.0
  xml-commons-apis12 = 0:1.2.04-0jpp.1
==
  java-gcj-compat
  jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6

* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK
* code, not content.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app (no .desktop file required).
* not a web app.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xml-commons-apis12
Short Description: AXP 1.2, DOM 2, SAX 2.0.1, SAX2-ext 1.0 apis
Owners: mwringe
Branches: devel
InitialCC: 

Please assign the review to the reviewer in the future.