Bug 1024993

SRPM URL changed to http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2

Hi James.

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #1)
> SRPM URL changed to
> http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2

- Why ?

For an handy review, it would be better to have two direct links, one for the .spec file and one for the .srpm .

- Why a manual installation ?
Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2)
> Hi James.
> 
> (In reply to Lukash James from comment #1)
> > SRPM URL changed to
> > http://krypt3r.net63.net/packages/fedora/lin_guider-2.9.0-1.fc17.src.rpm.bz2
> 
> - Why ?

Hello. URL changed because I can't get RPM file from my hosting (only bzipped). May be I can edit the description?

> For an handy review, it would be better to have two direct links, one for
> the .spec file and one for the .srpm .
> 
> - Why a manual installation ?
> Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?
After building lin_guider binary started from build directory. Makefile haven't 'install' target.

PS. I am not an upstream developer.

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #3)
> URL changed because I can't get RPM file from my hosting (only
> bzipped). May be I can edit the description?
Bug fixed with .htaccess. SRPM URL in 'Description' now valid.

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #3)
> > - Why a manual installation ?
> > Does '%make DESTDIR="" install' not work ?
> After building lin_guider binary started from build directory. Makefile
> haven't 'install' target.
> 
> PS. I am not an upstream developer.

Consider to leave a comment in the .spec file to describe the reasons of your choices, above all if they fall outside of packaging guidelines.

- You don't need of '%defattr(-, root, root)' line
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- Please remove the lines

#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/lg-wrapper.sh $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/lin_guider
#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/man/man1/lin_guider.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/lin_guider.1.gz
#ln -s /opt/gm_software/lin_guider/man/ru/man1/lin_guider.1.gz $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/ru/man1/lin_guider.1.gz
#install contrib/{mc.sh,mc.csh} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d

if they are not necessary.

- Your package provides a .desktop file; validate it in a %check section.
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

- Consider that starting from f20, every package docdir subdirectory will be unversioned. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5)
> Consider to leave a comment in the .spec file to describe the reasons of
> your choices, above all if they fall outside of packaging guidelines.
> 
> - You don't need of '%defattr(-, root, root)' line
> - Please remove the lines
> - Your package provides a .desktop file; validate it in a %check section.
> - Consider that starting from f20, every package docdir subdirectory will be
> unversioned.
Thank you for your comments, Antonio. I fixed all of them (I think) and updated files in 'Description' section.
I have a question. Should I add new entries in %changelog if I fixed anything?

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #6)
> I have a question. Should I add new entries in %changelog if I fixed
> anything?

- You may update and replace the existing data line since your package is not built yet.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release

- Move the %check section after %install
  Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes, desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P

'desktop-file-install' already validates the .desktop files automatically. 

- Move the line
  
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}

at the top.

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
>   Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes,
> desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P
No, 'install ...' was there :)

> 'desktop-file-install' already validates the .desktop files automatically. 
Oh, I see. I shall fix it.

> - Move the line
>   
> %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
> 
> at the top.
Before 'Name' and 'Version'? But will it work? 'Name' and 'Version' not defined in the first line.

(In reply to Lukash James from comment #8)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> >   Was 'desktop-file-install' line already in your first .spec file ? If yes,
> > desktop-file-validate is useless at this point. :P
> No, 'install ...' was there :)

So I'm sorry.

> > - Move the line
> >   
> > %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
> > 
> > at the top.
> Before 'Name' and 'Version'? But will it work? 'Name' and 'Version' not
> defined in the first line.

Good question. 
Yes, it works; I've used it myself with another one package. I think because 'rpm' itself defines numerous macros.
If you add "%dump" to the beginning of your spec file, process with rpm, you can  examine them.

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> Good question. 
> Yes, it works; I've used it myself with another one package. I think because
> 'rpm' itself defines numerous macros.
> If you add "%dump" to the beginning of your spec file, process with rpm, you
> can  examine them.

Thanks. Spec & SRPM updated.

> It is my first package, so I need a sponsor.
> Depends on the package 'firmware-ccd' (will be soon).

I'm not a sponsor so I can't do an official review of your first packages (you need to be sponsored first of all).
However, I can to do an initial review to relieve your (prospective) sponsor of some of his work, as soon as even the 'firmware-ccd' package will be ready. 

For everything else it depends by yourself and by your sponsor (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group). :)

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.