Bug 1097943

And here is the rpmlint output:

[bubeck@frodo rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/vdr-vnsiserver5.spec 
SPECS/vdr-vnsiserver5.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-vnsiserver5.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[bubeck@frodo rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/vdr-vnsiserver5-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xbmc -> ICBM
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pvr -> pvt, pr, per
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vnsi -> ANSI
vdr-vnsiserver5.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-vnsiserver5.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

So only false positives....

I will review your package.

Github provides a convenient way to retrieve online a source tarball for a given commit:

%global git_hash       031f69bd8844af38dac78f403c197bcb96c9a43a
%global short_git_hash  %%(c=%%{git_hash}; echo ${c:0:7})
[...]
Source:        https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/archive/%{short_git_hash}/%{name}-%{short_git_hash}.tar.gz
[...]
%prep
%setup -q -n vdr-plugin-vnsiserver-%{git_hash}


By the way, upstream has just released two days ago a new 1.1.0 release (see https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/commit/7d4aa813cc54431151e9120f2080f00251e9cf48). Notice that no tag was created for this release on Github. You should ask upstream to create a tag for further release, to make easier packaging and updates tracking.


It looks like upstream also improved well the way the plugin is build and deployed through Makefile. As a result, the %build and %install sections can be simplified as below:

%build
make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="-fPIC %optflags" CXXFLAGS="-fPIC %{optflags}"

%install
%make_install
install -dm 755 %{buildroot}%{vdr_configdir}/plugins/%{plugin_name}
install -Dpm 644 %{plugin_name}/* %{buildroot}%{vdr_configdir}/plugins/%{plugin_name}/


I really wonder if it's worth naming the package vdr-vnsiserver5:
- the project name doesn't refer anymore to the protocol version (see https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/commit/6ff29b7149a1a522804c0cd1877f1d2b5148d4d2)
- upstream officialy published about the protocol stabilization, and the renaming from vdr-vnsiserver5 to vdr-vnsiserver (see http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=189793).
As a result, you should rename the package to vdr-vnsiserver.

thanks for your input and valuable feedback.

I updated to 1.1.0 and changed the package name and SPEC to your proposal. Here is the update:

Spec URL: http://bubeck.fedorapeople.org/vdr-vnsiserver.spec
SRPM URL: http://bubeck.fedorapeople.org/vdr-vnsiserver-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

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

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



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

C/C++:
[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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ses-esl/1097943-vdr-
     vnsiserver/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/vdr/plugins/vnsiserver(vdr-
     vnsiserver3)
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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
[x]: 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: vdr-vnsiserver-1.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          vdr-vnsiserver-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xbmc -> ICBM
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pvr -> pvt, pr, per
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vnsi -> ANSI
vdr-vnsiserver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
vdr-vnsiserver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
vdr-vnsiserver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xbmc -> ICBM
vdr-vnsiserver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pvr -> pvt, pr, per
vdr-vnsiserver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vnsi -> ANSI
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint vdr-vnsiserver
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xbmc -> ICBM
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pvr -> pvt, pr, per
vdr-vnsiserver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vnsi -> ANSI
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
vdr-vnsiserver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(vdr-vnsiserver)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    vdr(abi)(x86-64)



Provides
--------
vdr-vnsiserver:
    config(vdr-vnsiserver)
    libvdr-vnsiserver.so.2.0.0()(64bit)
    vdr-vnsiserver
    vdr-vnsiserver(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver/archive/7d4aa81/vdr-vnsiserver-7d4aa81.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 31ca779f4d88b39cf48297c2037c1ac3fb1d165dc223ae9740c78d97d2ba065a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31ca779f4d88b39cf48297c2037c1ac3fb1d165dc223ae9740c78d97d2ba065a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1097943
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


vdr-vnsiserver and vdr-vnsiserver3 both share the same plugin directory and th e same configuration file (/etc/vdr/plugins/vnsiserver/allowed_hosts). Moreover, they can't run together in VDR. I suggest adding the line below to your .spec:
   Conflicts: vdr-vnsiserver3
Such a conflict is accepted according to the guidelines (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts).
Once the Conflicts clause added, I will approve your package.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts

Thanks for your review.

I've updated to 1.1.0-2 and added the Conflicts. Here is the update:

Spec URL: http://bubeck.fedorapeople.org/vdr-vnsiserver.spec
SRPM URL: http://bubeck.fedorapeople.org/vdr-vnsiserver-1.1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm

This package is APPROVED!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: vdr-vnsiserver
Short Description: VDR plugin to handle XBMC requests via VNSI 
Upstream URL: https://github.com/FernetMenta/vdr-plugin-vnsiserver
Owners: bubeck
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

thanks for all the support and the review. The package has been successfully imported into rawhide, F20, and F19.