Bug 493957

- Don't use macros for cat or rm. (Macro for python is in the python guideline for some reason.)

- Don't use filelist.

- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-)

- Remove empty %post and %postun sections.

- Change

BuildRequires: python, python-devel, python-setuptools

to

BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel

(BR python is redundant, since python-devel already pulls that in. If you BR python-setuptools-devel, then it pulls setuptools and python-devel automatically.)

Also, you don't even need python-setuptools unless you want to build for EPEL.

Damn, wrong tab; meant for bug 492979. I must be daydreaming. Sorry. :)

Well, I might as well review this package as it's related to healpix.

rpmlint output:
skyviewer.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/skyviewer-1.0.0/test_iqu.fits
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

No problem with this one.

- You didn't try to build in mock, did you? Missing BRs:
BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils
BuildRequires:  libQGLViewer-devel
BuildRequires:  qt4-devel

After this builds fine.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX
- There is no license file included, or any license mentioned in the source code or the homepage. Must get license information from upstream before the package can be approved.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- Add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSFIX (Missing BRs mentioned above.)

Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please have a look if you can get it to build.

Thanks for the review.

(In reply to comment #3)

> - You didn't try to build in mock, did you? Missing BRs:
> BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils
> BuildRequires:  libQGLViewer-devel
> BuildRequires:  qt4-devel

Nope, dependencies weren't in yet, and I did not bother constructing repositories. Thanks for that.

Will fix. (Will reroll the package once the license is settled)

> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
> Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX

> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

> NEEDSFIX
> - There is no license file included, or any license mentioned in the source
> code or the homepage. Must get license information from upstream before the
> package can be approved.

Trying to do that. Contacted via a web form a week ago, no response.
Sent mail to the authors now.

> SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
> upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX

Done.

> MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
> runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
> - Add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt


(In reply to comment #4)
> Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please
> have a look if you can get it to build.  

I'm not going to do this. This is a software package, not a substitution for developer's infrastructure. If upstream wanted me to do this, they would integrate it in the build system.

I doubt anyone will miss it anyways.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks for the review.

No problem. If you want to repay me you can review some of my packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jussilehtola#Awaiting_review
All of these are very simple (firehol is the most elaborate since it has a initrd script).

> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please
> > have a look if you can get it to build.  
> 
> I'm not going to do this. This is a software package, not a substitution for
> developer's infrastructure. If upstream wanted me to do this, they would
> integrate it in the build system.
> 
> I doubt anyone will miss it anyways.  

You're right, the package doesn't even have development headers so there's no need to have API information.

Yay, got a response about license; essentially "written under contrect for goverment -- no copyright" (by the way, shouldn't this apply to cdf as well?).

Added the copy of the e-mail to the package. Future versions will include the license file in distribution tarball.

Applied your BR fix as well.

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/skyviewer.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/skyviewer-1.0.0-2.fc11.src.rpm

Looks good now,

APPROVED.


PS. Please add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt to %doc since they contain some important information.

(In reply to comment #8)
> PS. Please add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt to %doc since they contain some
> important information.  

Sorry I forgot.
I will do so upon import.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: skyviewer
Short Description: Program to display HEALPix-based skymaps in FITS files
Owners: lkundrak
Branches: EL-5 F-10
InitialCC: astronomy-sig

cvs done.

You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet?

(In reply to comment #11)
> You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet?  

Just done that, thanks for reminding!

(By the way, I won't mind if you create updates for my packages, or commit to them or build them or anything. Feel free to do so anytime!)

(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet?  
> 
> Just done that, thanks for reminding!
> 
> (By the way, I won't mind if you create updates for my packages, or commit to
> them or build them or anything. Feel free to do so anytime!)  

Oh but I can't, since AFAIK I'm not a provenpackager :)

PS. Add the Review Request to the bug field in the update manager, so it'll close the review bug automatically.