Bug 1385180

into pidgin → for pidgin

%{__rm} → rm
There's absolutely no need to do this. The guidelines require macros for *directories*, but not for executables. If you have a rogue rm in the path, you have bigger problems, and anyway, there are various other programs called during build, so guarding just rm isn't useful. Same for %__make.

+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (GPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ provides/requires look OK
+ builds and installs OK
+ no scriptlets needed (.so in private directory)
- versioning doesn't follow the guidelines [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Pre-Release_packages has the rules, but it's rather muddled unfortunately]. I think keeping the git date in version makes sense, but the git tag should be moved to the release tag.

%global gitcommit ea683512f9b82f2257770f0ed56d819eea230fc2
%global gitdate 20160405
%{?gitcommit:%global gitcommitshort %(c=%{gitcommit}; echo ${c:0:7})}

Version: 0.0.%{gitdate}
Release: 1%{?gitcommit:.git%{gitcommitshort}}%{?dist}

Thank you for the quick review!  =)

***

Updated package:

Koji Build:

  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16099176


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/purple-facebook.spec
  SRPM URL:  https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.2.git66ee773.fc26.src.rpm

***

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> into pidgin → for pidgin

fixed


> %{__rm} → rm
> There's absolutely no need to do this. The guidelines require macros for
> *directories*, but not for executables. If you have a rogue rm in the path,
> you have bigger problems, and anyway, there are various other programs
> called during build, so guarding just rm isn't useful. Same for %__make.

I think this is more a personal preference of mine and doesn't violate packaging guidelines.


> - versioning doesn't follow the guidelines
> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Pre-Release_packages
> has the rules, but it's rather muddled unfortunately]. I think keeping the
> git date in version makes sense, but the git tag should be moved to the
> release tag.

fixed

***

Hope the package is fine now and can be approved.  ;)

(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2)
> > %{__rm} → rm
> > There's absolutely no need to do this. The guidelines require macros for
> > *directories*, but not for executables. If you have a rogue rm in the path,
> > you have bigger problems, and anyway, there are various other programs
> > called during build, so guarding just rm isn't useful. Same for %__make.
> 
> I think this is more a personal preference of mine and doesn't violate
> packaging guidelines.

Yeah, it's just gratuitous obfuscation ;)

OK, the version thing was the only bigger issue. That is fixed now. Package is APPROVED.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/purple-facebook

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-44797466c0

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-805a9a3925

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1fee03e1a8

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fd02294bfb

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1c172d3506

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.