SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/blob/master/SPECS/newlisp.spec SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/newlisp-10.3.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Newlisp is a Lisp-like general purpose scripting language. %{name} is well suited for applications in AI, web search and more. It also can be used for embedded systems applications.
I'll review it (and sponsor you as well)
Thanks, and also while I remember rpmlint didn't give a error on the SPEC/SRPM/RPM except missing enchant-dictiionary-not-found en_US, from which I heard installing it on my system will fix that error.
I't almost ok exept what isn't :) I made two patches (and rebased them all as well): http://peter.fedorapeople.org/newlisp/ Patch #2 allows us to pass additional Fedora flags (in fact it overrides default newlisp's ones, so, please examine which additional flags are required for normal operation. For your info - I added them in comments above the line with 'make' invocation. Also I properly claimed ownership on all directories and removed excessive stuff (no need to explicitly claim man-pages as %doc). Please, take a look at this spec-file: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/newlisp/newlisp.spec and make sure that all these commented out gcc flags are not required (or otherwise): # -pedantic -Wno-strict-aliasing -Wno-long-long After you confirm that it does work with the current CFLAGS, I'll continue review.
Confirming it does work fine. Also I have added the official man page that got revised in SCM after I submited the patch to one of the developers of the software. Updated SPEC: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/newlisp.spec Updated SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/newlisp-10.3.2-2.fc15.src.rpm
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/newlisp-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (proper value is GPLv3+ ). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum newlisp-10.3.2.tgz* 73378da1a6c3eb5fd4e9f88969fd0cdef86d24f38f09b8d17d0e7f76b226c88b newlisp-10.3.2.tgz 73378da1a6c3eb5fd4e9f88969fd0cdef86d24f38f09b8d17d0e7f76b226c88b newlisp-10.3.2.tgz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3226119 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/CPP header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So the only issue is the "License" tag - please, fix it. This package is APPROVED.
License field has been updated SPEC: http://raw.github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/master/SPECS/newlisp.spec SRPM: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SRPMS/newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15.src.rpm
Ok. good. Now, please tell me your FAS name, and I'll sponsor you.
FAS user name: ndowens
Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I just sponsored Nathan. On, now you need to go through SCM Request procedure as described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: newlisp Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language Owners: ndowens Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: newlisp Short Description: Lisp-like general scripting language Owners: ndowens Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Summary name is in CamelCase, SCM request is lowercase. Please rectify. Thanks!
Git done (by process-git-requests). Thanks!
newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15
newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
newlisp-10.3.2-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: newlisp New Branches: f16 Owners: ndowens InitialCC: Add f16 branch please
Git done (by process-git-requests).