Bug 470155 (xword)

Fixed a stupid packaging bug involving $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.

New Spec URL: www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword.spec
New SRPM URL: www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword-1.0-3.fc9.src.rpm

rpmlint now reports no errors or warnings.

I need a sponsor, so I need to make some informal reviews. A short look at the spec file looks good, for what value that can be. But I get an "Access denied" for the srpm. No good, that is :-)

--alec

Sorry about that. Try it now.

OK, now I can download.

Rpmlint is dead quiet on package and spec file.

The naming is OK, as is the base name of the spec file.

Package builds cleanly in mock, on a Fedora 9/X86_64 configuration.

After building and installing, the program starts just fine. Nothing strange
at a first sight. 

The license: tag is valid, and the code has a proper license file and
copyright notice in the source.

The package meets to my understanding the Packaging Guidelines.

The License file is not in %doc (there is no %doc at all). It should be.

The upstream md5sum matches the srpm source (5e1963b488dfa0aca75be3bc3af04887)

As a summary, I see no problems at all with this package besides the missing 
%doc LICENSE. And it looks fun. You know, it's harder if it's not your native language... I have actually walked down the complete review checklist, but it's really no point to describe all "complies" here.

Thanks a lot for for the review!

I added the %doc LICENSE

New Spec URL: http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword.spec
New SRPM URL: http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword-1.0-4.fc9.src.rpm

--Alex

Hello, Alex:

It seems that no one tried to review your package for more
than 2 months.
Do you still want to import your srpm into Fedora?
If so, I will try to review your package.

Yes, I still would like to import it. Thanks!


--Alex

Well, I have not checked your package at all, however

-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

Before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on my wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets
(Check "No one is reviewing")

Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
------------------------------------------------------------

Created attachment 330550 [details]
python 2.6 patch (proposed)

For 1.0-4

* Dependency
-----------------------------------------------------------
$ grep 'import ' xword 
import pygtk
import gtk
import gtk.gdk
import gobject
    import gnomeprint
    import gnomeprint.ui
import pango
import sys
import time
import os, os.path
import md5
import pickle
import ConfigParser
-----------------------------------------------------------
  - It seems "Requires: pygtk2 gnome-python2-gnomeprint" is
    sufficient.

* Scriptlets
  - For desktop-file-install, now "--vendor=fedora" is not needed
    (guidelines changed):
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage

  - "Requires: shared-mime-info" is not needed:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo

* Some misc issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
%prep
....
mkdir mime
cp -p %SOURCE2 mime
-----------------------------------------------------------
  - What are these lines for?

-----------------------------------------------------------
gzip $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1
-----------------------------------------------------------
  - Not needed. rpmbuild itself gzip's this automatically.

* Macros in %changelog
  - In changelog, when you write macros please use %% instead
    of % to prevent macros from being expanded.

* Python warning
  - By the way now rawhide uses python 2.6 and xword
    causes some warnings:
------------------------------------------------------------
./xword:50: DeprecationWarning: the md5 module is deprecated; use hashlib instead
  import md5
------------------------------------------------------------
    Would you check if the attached patch works for you?

Then I will wait for your another review request or
your pre-review.

ping?

Sorry, I was away for a bit. I will test your patch and
respond to the other comments this weekend. 

Also I do not have a rawhide system handy. Did you test it
on rawhide already?

(In reply to comment #11)
> Also I do not have a rawhide system handy. Did you test it
> on rawhide already?

Like other packages I reviewed I don't know how to use this 
software so I did just some basic test for this software 
(like if the software lauches)

ping again?

ping again?

The proposed python2.6 patch fails on fedora 9. I will
fix it, but it will take a bit of time.

If my patch won't work on F-9, for now you can just ignore
it because my patch is just to suppress warnings.

By the way I am still waiting your pre-review or another review
request.

ping again?

Thanks for your patience. I addressed most of the comments in the
new version. Python 2.6 patch will be addressed when I get back
home (a few weeks). 


New Spec URL: http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword.spec
New SRPM URL: http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~eskin/xword/xword-1.0-5.fc9.src.rpm

--Alex

Sorry, I missed your last comments. I will re-review
this package soon.

Well, for 1.0-5:

* GTK icon cache scriptlets, %define -> %global change
  - Guidelines again changed so please update to follow the last
    ones:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#System_Architecture
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache

Then:
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. 
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on my wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets
(Check "No one is reviewing")

Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
------------------------------------------------------------

ping?

ping again?

I will close this bug as NOTABUG if no response is received
from the reporter within ONE WEEK.

Once closing.

If someone wants to import this package into Fedora,
please file a new review request and mark this bug as
a duplicate of the new one, thank you.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 871629 ***