Bug 529024
Summary: | Review Request: GNUsTicker - Gnome RSS feed reader applet | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Neil Horman <nhorman> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, gholms, martin.gieseking, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-11-03 17:05:06 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 201449 |
Description
Neil Horman
2009-10-14 16:42:59 UTC
Some quick comments: - append %{?dist} to the release number - add --disable-static to %{configure} - add the following line to the build section in order to remove .la files: find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete - set the permissions of the .py files to 0755 - you should replace the existing python shebangs according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython - remove the empty files (NEWS, ChangeLog) from %doc - add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ to the %build section and remove %{_docdir}/GNUsTicker from %files as the folder only contains the files already added to %doc $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-x86_64/result/GNUsTicker-* GNUsTicker.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install GNUsTicker.src: W: no-buildroot-tag GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/parser.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker-0.1.1/NEWS GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/gtkutils.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feedparser.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/setup.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/GNUsTicker.a GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/utils.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker/ChangeLog GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/fake_rss.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/rss.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker-0.1.1/ChangeLog GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feeds.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/configuration.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/globaldata.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/widgets/scrolling.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/GNUsTicker/NEWS GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/gtkforms.py 0644 /usr/bin/env GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feeds_configuration.py 0644 /usr/bin/env 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 3 warnings. Thanks! I'll respin this shortly. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker-0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm There you go, updated with your notes taken into account. Err, your latest spec file differs a bit too much from the initial one. :) The license tag is wrong, BuildRequires and Requires are missing, BuildRoot is not well-formed, and the description is shortened. Also, append %{?_smp_mflags} to make, and bump the release number every time you upload a new revision. Shoot sorry, I updated an old version of the spec. Ill update and post the rigj rpm / spec in the am Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nhorman/rpms/GNUsTicker-0.1.1-2.fc11.src.rpm There you, properly cleaned up as per your notes. Thanks. ping, any further thoughts? Sorry, I'm completely busy with my job at the moment and currently don't have the time to do full reviews. no worries, just checking in I'm not an approved packager yet, so I'll give you an informal review in hopes that it will help get this request moving again. See below for rpmlint output ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file matches base package name NO - Meets Packaging Guidelines ok - License (GPLv2+) ok - License field in spec matches ok - License file included in package ok - Spec in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream md5sum: 31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7 GNUsTicker.tar.gz 31914926b70230c4ac0eacea95fed5b7 GNUsTicker.tar.gz.upstream ok - BuildRequires correct na - Spec handles locales/find_lang na - Package has .so files in %{_libdir} and runs ldconfig in %post and %postun ok - Package does not bundle system libs na - Package relocatability is justified ok - No duplicate files in %files ok - Spec has %defattr in each %files section ok - File permissions are sane ok - Spec has a correct %clean section ok - Spec has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install ok - Spec has consistant macro usage ok - Package is code or permissible content na - Building for earlier than F9 and spec has correct buildroot ok - File names valid UTF-8 ok - %doc files don't affect runtime na - Headers go in -devel package na - Static libs go in -static package ok - Package contains no .la files no - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file installed w/ desktop-file-install (Unnecessary: panel applet) ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target ok - Compiles and builds on at least one arch ok - Compiles and builds on all archs or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1925747 SHOULD Items: na - Query upstream for license inclusion no - Translations of description and summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Scriptlets are sane na - Non-devel subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependency na - pkgconfig (.pc) files go in -devel package ok - Latest version ok - Has dist tag ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin ######################################## * rpmlint output SPECS/GNUsTicker.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag GNUsTicker.src: W: no-buildroot-tag As far as I know this is fine if you never plan to build this on el5, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt to include a BuildRoot line anyway. GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/widgets/__init__.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/__init__.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/feed_plugins/pop3.py GNUsTicker.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/libexec/GNUsTicker/extractors.py Either mark these non-executable or add shebang lines to them. * Meets packaging guidelines Drop the explicit Requires from the spec file - rpmbuild will pick up required libraries for you. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires * Other comments This program is ancient. Its last commit was four years ago. Do you plan to maintain it with bugfixes and the like yourself? It's been most of a year since the last comment with no response from the submitter; I'm just going to close this out. |