SRPM URL: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ak5y54kky6gq4zq/worker-2.18.0-1.fc15.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://www.mediafire.com/file/mo0fkxityhk4rr8/worker.spec Description: A X11 file manager that features low requirements, fast and easy access to archives and remote sites and more
Remove build requires that are part of the default buildroot https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires Remove the explicit requires https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires Build the package using mock build or koji scratch build and verify that you have specified the dependencies correctly Run rpmlint on the spec file, srpm and binary rpm and ensure that all valid warnings and errors are fixed After that, bump up the release
First while I remember. I looked at the packages not to list in BuildRequires, and it did not list to not list libX11-devel. Also it is required in order to build. First the new SPEC: http://fpaste.org/RJK7 rpmlint on the SRPM: [makedev@revan SRPMS]$ rpmlint worker-2.18.0-2.fc15.src.rpm worker.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint on RPM: [makedev@revan SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/worker-2.18.0-2.fc15.x86_64.rpm worker.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US worker.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/worker.1.gz worker.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/it/man1/worker.1.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
defattr is not required anymore. you should use find_lang macro to handle locale files http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files Fix the problem of man pages not being in UTF-8 format http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8 Please submit the revised spec as well as the SRPM for review
First I did the %find_lang %{name} and it wouldn't compile, saying that no translations found. NEW SPEC: http://fpaste.org/U5Qx/ NEW SRPM: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ixt23r8psb48kk3/worker-2.18.0-4.fc15.src.rpm
It seems the new SPEC file paste is expiring so I created a new one: http://pastebin.com/azPCB09p
Nathan, if you don't have access to the fedorapeople.org webspace yet, I suggest to use something like dropbox for example. It's an easy way to upload and to provide publicly accessible files. Here are some further comments on your package: - You can combine the separate file conversions with a loop: cd man for f in fr/worker.1 it/worker.1; do iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 $f > $f.new && \ touch -r $f $f.new && \ mv $f.new $f done - The package contains a .desktop file that must be properly installed or verified with desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files - Drop line %docdir %{_mandir}/* from %files as the affected directories are flagged as docdirs by default. - The package currently doesn't own the directory /usr/share/worker/ but only its contents. Drop the trailing asterisk from %{_datadir}/worker/* (in %files) to fix this. - Add the following line to %files: %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING THANKS Especially the file containing the license text, if present in the tarball, must always be added to the package. - Please be more verbose in the %files section and avoid to use single plain asterisks. This way it's easier to see what's actually packaged and it also helps to prevent adding unwanted files. Also don't add the suffix .gz to the manpage files since the compression format applied by rpmbuild might change: %{_bindir}/worker %{_datadir}/applications/worker.desktop %{_datadir}/pixmaps/WorkerIcon*.xpm %{_datadir}/worker/ %{_mandir}/man1/worker.1* %{_mandir}/fr/man1/worker.1* %{_mandir}/it/man1/worker.1* - To increase legibility, please add blank lines before %build and between the %changelog entries. Also, add spaces after "*" and "-" in the %changelog.
Nathan, have you already been sponsored or aren't you interested in submitting this package any longer? I just noticed you removed the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker but can't find you in the packager group yet. If you don't want to join the group any longer, please close this ticket as NOTABUG.
Thanks for asking. It seems that lemenkov is going to review my other package review and sponsor me as well http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724859 I am currently correcting the issues in the package as mentioned. Thanks
OK, thanks for the clarification. In this case I readd the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker. It should stay active until the sponsoring process is finished because this prevents a premature approval of the package. Peter will possibly review this package as well.
New SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/worker.spec No rpmlint errors New SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/worker-2.18.0-5.fc15.src.rpm No rpmlint errors
The package looks good now. Just a couple of (non-blocking) comments: - You can drop the initial cleaning of the buildroot in %install if you intend to build the package for Fedora and EPEL 6 only. Otherwise, you must add a BuildRoot field, and a %clean section as described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines EPEL 4 also needs a %defattr(-,root,root,-) at the top of the %files section. - The Summary sounds odd to my ears. I'd remove the "the": File manager for X11 - Add a final period to the %description. You should apply these changes before committing the package. $ rpmlint worker*.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - GPLv2+ - The bison parser is licensed under GPLv3+ but the additional exception allows the parser to be used in GPLv2+ binaries as well. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum worker-2.18.0.tar.gz* 545912187102a788a5d15ef251d6821c worker-2.18.0.tar.gz 545912187102a788a5d15ef251d6821c worker-2.18.0.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so files without suffix must go in a -devel package. [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [+] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. EPEL <= 5 only: [X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [.] 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. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] 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. [+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. ---------------- Package APPROVED ----------------
SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/worker.spec SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/worker-2.18.0-6.fc15.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: worker Short Description: File manager for X11 Owners: ndowens Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Nathan, please set the fedora-cvs flag to "?". Otherwise, your request doesn't get noticed.
Thanks for the information. I was thinking + meant that it was ready to be created in the repo.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/worker-2.18.0-6.fc15
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
worker-2.18.0-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.