Bug 398601

Ok, it builds under Mock and it does run. Rpmlint runs OK.
Some issues that should be fixed:
- No pseudonyms. Use your real name and your personal/fedoraproject email.
- vendor should be Fedora.
- %makeinstall macro should not be used.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall
- Can't download sources. Any input ?
- useless BR: libglade2-devel requires gtk2-devel which requires pango-devel

Please note that + items are OK, - items should be fixed or justified, ~ items
needs further investigation.

* MUST items
+ Respect naming guidelines.
+ License: GPLv2 OK
+ The spec file must be written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
+ Compile on i386 and x86_64 at least.
+ locales are properly handled.
+ Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks)
in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun. 
+ Not relocatable.
+ A package must own all directories that it creates.
+ A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files must be set properly. 
+ Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
+ Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
+ If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files must be in a -devel package.
+ Static libraries must be in a -static package.
+ Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
+ If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then
library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
+ Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in
the spec.
+ Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section. 
+ Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.  
+ At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
+ All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
+ Includes licenses text.
+ The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
+ Builds in mock (i386 & x86_64)
~ Builds on i386 & x86_64 (not tested on PPC)
+ runs without segmentation faults
+ No scriptlets.
+ No subpackages.
+ The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A
reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed
in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
+ If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of
the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further
information.

Ok, it's fixed
Spec URL: http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock.spec
SRPM URL: http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock-0.3.3-1.fc8.src.rpm

+ Mock is OK.
+ Sources match sha1sum from upstream.
+ %makeinstall issue fixed
+ vendor issue fixed.
- you left one pseudo and forgot to add your email.
- bump the release version. ;-)
Then, I think it will be OK for inclusion in Fedora Package Collection.

Haïkel, if you think this package is okay, please assign this bug
to yourself, change status and set fedora-review flag appropriately.

Thanks, it's cleaned
New SRPM URL : http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock-0.3.3-2.fc8.src.rpm

Benoît, it seems that this bug is approved. Please import this package
into Fedora.

This is OK for me ! :o)

I don't see any further issues/blockers, so this package is APPROVED. 
Please close this NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. 

Welcome to Fedora Packagers Family ! 

Benoît, sounds like you have not yet been sponsored for cvs-extras.

Please visit : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/userbox.cgi?_edit=1

Add yourself as under the groupname "cvsextras", so as I can approve you.

Once you are done, you'll need to wait till I'll grant you the access :)

#001: please apply the required timestamps:
instead of : make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
use: %{__make} INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 
during the %{__make} install process there needs to be a "-p" in this
/usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'clock-face.svg' '....

#002: please use the same email address as that of your "fedora account" in 
the %changelog

#003: are these requires realy needed ??
Avoid the use of versions in Requires as far as you can
Requires:	perl-XML-Parser
Requires:	libglade2 >= 2.6.0
Requires:	librsvg2 >= 2.14.0

#004: drop INSTALL from %doc, because the user doesn't need that file since 
it's your job to compile the package :)

#005 	--vendor Fedora
please rename it to
--vendor fedora (small f)

ls /usr/share/applications/ | grep fedora

you will see that most are starts with "f".


All these are not blockers, but it helps others to quickily understandy tour 
spec and help you eventually. :)

Would someone update this bug?

All was fixed :
http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc8.src.rpm
http://sereinity.free.fr/fedora/cairo-clock.spec

from your spec file:
%{__rm} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

desktop-file-install					\
	--vendor fedora					\
	--add-category X-Fedora				\
	--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications	\
	desktop/%{name}.desktop

to have a clean spec file you could do the following in the future
desktop-file-install --vendor fedora           \
        --delete-original                          \
	--add-category X-Fedora				\
	--dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications	\
	desktop/%{name}.desktop

I'm sponsoring.

Please follow the following guidelines to commit to CVS
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure

Please DO NOT REQUEST a "devel" branch if this package is not compatible with 
KDE4.

Sorry, a small mistake on #11:

desktop-file-install --vendor fedora           \
        --delete-original                          \
        --add-category X-Fedora                         \
        --dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications   \
        $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: cairo-clock
Short Description: Cairo-rendered on-screen clock
Owners: sereinit
Branches: F-7 F-8
InitialCC: none
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Note that a devel branch is always created. 
You can still build against kde3 in devel by BuildRequiring the approprate kde3
development packages. 

cvs done.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Please DO NOT REQUEST a "devel" branch if this package is not compatible with 
> KDE4.

Please ignore this !
this package doesn't need kde 

cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7

cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

cairo-clock-0.3.3-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.