Bug 480857

Just some quick comments

- For %setup is '-n %{name}-%{version}' not needed, this is the default.
- the manpage should not have %doc
- Summary should be changed.  Not everybody knows what 'Plan9's dumpfs' is.
- Use '%defattr(-,root,root,-)' instead of '%defattr(-, root, root, 0755)'

Hi, Fabian, thanks for the hints.
SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-2/pdumpfs.spec
SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-2/pdumpfs-1.3-2.fc10.src.rpm

There are some rpmlint error

[fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint pdumpfs*
pdumpfs.i386: E: no-binary
pdumpfs-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

noarch?

You're right, noarch solved it.
I have noticed that Fedora's RPMs looks much better built than CentOS's. Do you think so?

SPEC: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-3/pdumpfs.spec
SRPM: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/pdumpfs/1.3-3/pdumpfs-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm

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

Package: 

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: F10/i386
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint pdumpfs-1.3-3.fc10.src.rpm
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [fab@laptop24 noarch]$ rpmlint pdumpfs-1.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
     spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 [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.
     License type: GPLv2
 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: c1bb6514b3136854ca265913fd3765c9
     Build source:    c1bb6514b3136854ca265913fd3765c9
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales.
 [-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
 [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [-] 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] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: F10/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     Tested:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128910
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

There is a translated man page (ja).  Is there a reason why you didn't add this?  If no, add the japanese man page before importing into the cvs.

Beside that I see no further blocker, package APPROVED

Hi, Fabian. Ja man pages added. Thanks a lot.
SPEC: http://lonelyspooky.com/fedora/packages/pdumpfs/1.3-4/pdumpfs.spec
SRPM: http://lonelyspooky.com/fedora/packages/pdumpfs/1.3-4/pdumpfs-1.3-4.fc10.src.rpm

(I'm having some troubles with my fedora peolpe account.)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: pdumpfs
Short Description: Daily backup system
Owners: lspooky
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC: fab

cvs done.

pdumpfs-1.3-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

pdumpfs-1.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.