Bug 539693

New version 0.9.3
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.3-2.fc13.src.rpm
http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare.spec

I'll take this one.

Initial comments:

- Strange indentation (unaligned lines)

- Result of rpmlint is not clean:
[tnorth@grouchy ~]$ rpmlint /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SRPMS/plowshare-0.8.1-1.fc14.src.rpm /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/plowshare-0.8.1-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
plowshare.src: E: summary-too-long C command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
plowshare.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://plowshare.googlecode.com/files/plowshare-0.8.1.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
plowshare.noarch: E: summary-too-long C command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/2shared.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/mediafire.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/depositfiles.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/zshare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/megaupload.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/rapidshare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/badongo.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/4shared.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/lib.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plowup
plowshare.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plowdown
plowshare.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plowdel
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 14 warnings.

It seems that the source is a quite old version of the software (date of the initial review request).

I picked it for review without actually checking what this software is. I guess nobody picked it yet because its use can be controversial. Anyway, let's ignore that aspect which does not matter for a review.

Hello, Thibault and thank you for taking it.
Yes, it is very old.
I try update, but authors post svn revision tarball - http://code.google.com/p/plowshare/downloads/detail?name=plowshare-SVN-r1327-snapshot.tar.gz&can=2&q= how you think, we shoud threat it as prerelease, or release, if it posted by upstream? How I should fill version in spec file in this case?

Hi Pavel,

It is ok to use this tarball, for the naming see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning

You can set something like this:
Version         <next_release_number>
Release:        0.1%{prerelease}%{?dist}

This is I known.
Problem there what no release there! Tarball looks like  plowshare-SVN-r1327-snapshot.tar.gz. It is official tarball, not my checkout! So I do not known what mark as <next_release_number>.

I thought it release after 0.9.4 but sure what should be next (0.9.5 or 1.0)...

I don't think it matters a lot. You could set it to 0.9.4, and then add +svnXXXX

I would like to contribute with this package. I have a spec file according comment #8 (I guess...) that I mantain and a rpm package too. How can I do this? Is it possible now?

Sorry for the delay
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.1.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare.spec

Elder, I think this package is quite simple to maintain it together. But if you want - you may became co-maintainer.

Pavel, there is no problem for me if possible but you're right about this.

My dependencies are a little different from yours. Package ImageMagick-perl is necessary for badongo and netload.in modules. So, you can add this line:

Requires:  perl(Image::Magick) 

Here is my spec file:

http://eldermarco.fedorapeople.org/files/specs/plowshare.spec

Bash as a dependency isn't necessary, I believe.

I have add caca-utils and perl(Image::Magick), thank you.

But why you think bash is not necessary? It is implicit in scripts, so for example sh will not satisfy that dependency.

http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.2.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare.spec

caca-utils is an optional package (libcaca) according the upstream, but I prefer add it.  bash, gcc, sed and other packages occur too often and you don't need add them as BuildRequires according this article (fedora guidelines):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2

I believe that you don't need add some packages in this list as Requires too. Anyway, rpm have an internal dependency generator and the bash will be added as a dependency because /bin/sh is a link to /bin/bash. Look

$ rpm -qf /bin/sh 
bash-4.1.7-3.fc14.i686
$ ls -l /bin/sh 
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Dez 17 22:39 /bin/sh -> bash 

But I can be wrong.

P.S.: I'm sorry for possible English mistakes. I speak Portuguese and now I'm learning English. =]

Ok, bash deleted.

http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.3.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm

P.S. My English also is very poor :(

Hello Pavel,

I'm sorry, I forgot, but gocr isn't necessary either. tesseract (or tesseract-ocr in some distributions) is.

Where is Thibault? =)

I'm not far away :-) just very busy.

I'll check it soon. Ok for you guys ?

Oh, no problem Thibault. Thanks.

Initially gocr was added by my request of new letitbit plugin (http://code.google.com/p/plowshare/issues/detail?id=65&can=1&q=letitbit&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Owner%20Summary%20Reporter%20Modified) and I think it is no needed now at all.
Caca support also added by my request - http://code.google.com/p/plowshare/issues/detail?id=58&can=1&q=caca&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Owner%20Summary%20Reporter%20Modified and it is needed.

http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.3.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm

Thibault, no problem absolutely, there now hurry.

Thanks for your explanation Pavel. :)

Hi guys,

Any progress? Could I help you anyhow?

Yes, we're waiting for Thibault's review. :)

Sorry guys, I'm late. Sometimes this week! Please ping me again if nothing is coming :P

BTW, I get a 404 trying to get:

http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.3.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm

(But the spec is ok)

Ok seems to be here
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/plowshare/plowshare-0.9.4-0.4.svn1358.fc13.src.rpm

After a quick look at rpmlint output, there are a few permissions problems, scripts are chmod 0644 instead of 0755.
You can fix that with:

chmod 0755  %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/{modules/*.sh,core.sh}

Hi Thibault, thank you very much.

These scripts (modules/*.sh) are sourced by download.sh script. So, they don't need any execute permissions, originally.

Ok, I'll double-check that.

You should mention in a comment the url or command you use to fetch the SVN snapshot 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control

Otherwise, looks good. I'll post the complete review when these two points are fixed.

Indeed, its files only includes and do not intended be executable.

>You should mention in a comment the url or command you use to fetch the SVN
snapshot
This is not my checkout, it is upstream release, please see http://code.google.com/p/plowshare/downloads/list

If you remember we speak about it initially.

Oh now I recall.. I was mixed up because rpmlint couldn't get the package from its url.

rpmlint output:
[tnorth@grouchy ~]$ rpmlint /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SRPMS/plowshare-0.9.4-0.4.svn1358.fc14.src.rpm /home/tnorth/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/plowshare-0.9.4-0.4.svn1358.fc14.noarch.rpm
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://plowshare.googlecode.com/files/plowshare-SVN-r1358-snapshot.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downloader -> downloaded, down loader, down-loader
plowshare.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> unloader, uploaded, up loader
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/sendspace.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/usershare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/euroshare_eu.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/data_hu.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/depositfiles.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/fileserve.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/dataport_cz.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/badongo.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/uploading.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/hotfile.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/humyo.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/mediafire.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/115.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/dl_free_fr.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/2shared.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/multiupload.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/4shared.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/divshare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/netload_in.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/rapidshare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/zshare.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/x7_to.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/modules/megaupload.sh 0644L /bin/bash
plowshare.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/plowshare/core.sh 0644L /bin/bash
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 24 errors, 9 warnings.

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. 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}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines OK
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
# MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK
# MUST: 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. OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] N/A
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. N/A
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must 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). N/A
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
# MUST: 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. N/A
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} N/A
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK
# MUST: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. N/A
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. N/A
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK

# SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A
# SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK in koji
# SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK (noarch)
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK
# SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A
# SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
# SHOULD: 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. N/A
# SHOULD: 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. N/A
# SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. OK

Therefore, the package is APPROVED.

Thibault, thank you very much.

Elder, sorry, but I do not found you in packagers (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager/) to include in maintainers for SCM request. Do you sponsored Fedora packager? If so, just after add plowshare in Fedora apply himself as maintainer and I'll approve such requests. If you do not sponsored yet, you should do that first. Follow standard instruction. And unfortunately I can't help you there as I do not sponsor. 

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: plowshare
Short Description: command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most popular file-sharing websites
Owners: hubbitus
Branches: F-13 F-14 EL-5 EL-6
InitialCC:

Hi, I'm waiting a sponsor yet. Then, I add it. No problem. :)

Git done (by process-git-requests).

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc14

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc13

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el5

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el6

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

plowshare-0.9.4-0.5.svn1391.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Please new branch F-15.

Package change SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: plowshare
Short Description: command-line downloader/uploader for some of the most
popular file-sharing websites
Owners: hubbitus,eldermarco
Branches: F-15
InitialCC:

Since this already exists, please submit this as a Package Change request
and not New Package.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages

Thanks!

Hello Jon, 

We apologize.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: plowshare
New Branches: f15
Owners: hubbitus eldermarco
InitialCC: 

Fedora 15, new branch

Git done (by process-git-requests).

No worries, thanks!