Bug 1046812

I think the versioning is wrong. The 3.1 should be in the version field. Then again, who knows - the tarball naming is pretty weird anyways. Please check the package naming guidelines... and be prepared to use Epoch if the versioning changes.

Next, the Summary is inconsistent, since the Description doesn't mention WordStar at all. Based on the home page, I'd put something like
 Summary: An enhanced, portable fork of the JOE editor

Also, please don't use macros in the URL, because then it's not human readable in the spec. Also, note that according to the web page the url should be
 URL: http://mirbsd.de/jupp

(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #1)
> I think the versioning is wrong. The 3.1 should be in the version field.
> Then again, who knows - the tarball naming is pretty weird anyways. Please
> check the package naming guidelines... and be prepared to use Epoch if the
> versioning changes.

I was in touch with upstream before: The goal is to rename to jupp and the
versioning is correct. Personally, I also can not see any conflict with our
guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines

Do you see a blocker here? If so, please let me know so that we can talk to
upstream directly.

> Next, the Summary is inconsistent, since the Description doesn't mention
> WordStar at all. Based on the home page, I'd put something like
>  Summary: An enhanced, portable fork of the JOE editor

As the summary proposal came from upstream I would like to update description
instead. However changing one of the two texts is IMHO more cosmetic.

> Also, please don't use macros in the URL, because then it's not human
> readable in the spec. Also, note that according to the web page the url
> should be
>  URL: http://mirbsd.de/jupp

But you noticed that this URL redirects to https://www.mirbsd.org/jupp.htm?

(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2)
> (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #1)
> > I think the versioning is wrong. The 3.1 should be in the version field.
> > Then again, who knows - the tarball naming is pretty weird anyways. Please
> > check the package naming guidelines... and be prepared to use Epoch if the
> > versioning changes.
> 
> I was in touch with upstream before: The goal is to rename to jupp and the
> versioning is correct. Personally, I also can not see any conflict with our
> guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
> 
> Do you see a blocker here? If so, please let me know so that we can talk to
> upstream directly.

No, not really. Just making sure.

> > Next, the Summary is inconsistent, since the Description doesn't mention
> > WordStar at all. Based on the home page, I'd put something like
> >  Summary: An enhanced, portable fork of the JOE editor
> 
> As the summary proposal came from upstream I would like to update description
> instead. However changing one of the two texts is IMHO more cosmetic.

OK.
 
> > Also, please don't use macros in the URL, because then it's not human
> > readable in the spec. Also, note that according to the web page the url
> > should be
> >  URL: http://mirbsd.de/jupp
> 
> But you noticed that this URL redirects to https://www.mirbsd.org/jupp.htm?

Yes, it does (for now). But my primary point was that IMHO the URL in the spec should by copy-pasteable into the browser :)

Okay, changing the URL in the *.spec to something macro-free is not an issue.

Are you interested in taking the review?

Sure, might as well, looks simple enough.

- Because this was the very first spec in Fedora and any related channels, drop the mention of an "upgrade" from the changelog.

- IMHO using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not pretty because all other macros are in the %{} convention, I use %{buildroot} instead... But the former case is OK as well.

The package has been APPROVED.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: popen.inc is under 3 clause BSD, but because popen is a library 
      function on linux it's not compiled, and thus the license is pure GPLv2.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jupp-26-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          jupp-26-1.fc20.src.rpm
jupp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfulness -> powerlessness, wonderfulness, purposefulness
jupp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically
jupp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfulness -> powerlessness, wonderfulness, purposefulness
jupp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

You could fix these by changing powerfulness -> power and "automagically" -> automatically.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jupp
jupp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfulness -> powerlessness, wonderfulness, purposefulness
jupp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
jupp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(jupp)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libselinux.so.1()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
    libutil.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
jupp:
    config(jupp)
    jupp
    jupp(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.mirbsd.org/MirOS/dist/jupp/joe-3.1jupp26.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 99985d6f0db5cc59ba45b30291ce6c3ef9626637f0cca039b2e03484cf5dda42
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 99985d6f0db5cc59ba45b30291ce6c3ef9626637f0cca039b2e03484cf5dda42


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n jupp-26-1.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Susi, thank you very much for the very fast review! I will work through the
non-blockers after GIT import (for tracking) but before building the package.


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jupp
Short Description: Compact and feature-rich WordStar-compatible editor
Owners: robert
Branches: f20 f19 el6 el5
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jupp-26-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jupp-26-1.fc20

jupp-26-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jupp-26-1.fc19

jupp-26-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jupp-26-1.el6

jupp-26-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jupp-26-1.el5

Package jupp-26-1.el5:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing jupp-26-1.el5'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0024/jupp-26-1.el5
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Package jupp-26-1.el6:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing jupp-26-1.el6'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0025/jupp-26-1.el6
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

jupp-26-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

jupp-26-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

jupp-26-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

jupp-26-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.