Bug 550139

Just some quick comments on your spec file.

- You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory
- Please follow the guidelines for the installation of the .desktop file
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
- Can you please take a look at your BRs .  Isn't gettext needed by intltool and didn't libgee-devel pulls in libgee.

The rpmlint output

[fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino*
pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Update package:

Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec
SRPM URL:
http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-0.2.rc3.fc12.src.rpm

Changes:

- Update to 0.1.0rc3
- Fix BR
- Added desktop file validate for pino.desktop

Update package:

Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec
SRPM URL:
http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm

Changes:

- Update to 0.1.0

(In reply to comment #1)
> - You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with
> the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory

Requiring hicolor-icon-theme is not strictly needed because gtk2 already requires it. It is however recommended.

> - Can you please take a look at your BRs .  Isn't gettext needed by intltool

not on older releases such as EPEL, so I suggest to leave it in.

> The rpmlint output
> 
> [fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino*
> pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources

This one is fixed in with the new package.

(In reply to comment #3)
> - Update to 0.1.0  

Please update to 0.1.1 and then I will review the package. Some more comments:

- Timestamps of both the spec and the source are one year in the future. Please take care of the timestamps, see 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

- (Try to) Use Fedoras waf instead of the included version to build the package.

- %description should be more detailed and end with a dot.

- Don't hardcode /usr in --prefix=/usr. Use the %{_prefix} macro instead, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

- You could use a few more wildcards: Instead of

%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/mentions.svg
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/timeline.svg
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino.svg
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino_fresh.svg

use

%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/*/*.svg

But this is minor and up to you. The rest looks fine, package works as described. Looking forward to see it in Fedora.

Update package:

Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec
SRPM URL:
http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm

Changes:

- Update to 0.1.1
- Using waf as BR
- Updated description
- Using rpmmacros in build section

OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pino-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
FIX - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 005215400dcd00844558fbbe9b30fc46
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64
N/A - 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.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
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: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros: %{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
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: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane.
N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
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.


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete
OK - docs complete


Issues:
- The timestamp of Source0 still doesn't match SourceURL. Please use a download manager that preserves timestamps, see 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

- Build is not verbose, please use "waf build -v"

- You are not using parallel make, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make

- your macro usage is not consistent. You are using both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Please only use one.

We are almost done, the 4 issues are easy to fix. Please do this when you update to 0.1.2 (just released) and then I'd like to have a final glance at the package before I approve it.

Update package:

Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec
SRPM URL:
http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.2-1.fc12.src.rpm

Changes:

- Update to 0.1.2
- Fixed macro consistency
- Changed Waf build to use verbose mode
- Fixed timestamp for Source0
- Use Parallel make for build

OK, mdsum or Source0 is now e1418a1ee48c754a1c7ac76ad205f571 and matches. All other items are fixed too. The package is APPROVED.

Good job!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: pino
Short Description: A fast, easy and free Twitter client
Owners: allisson
Branches: F-11 F-12

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py)

pino-0.1.2-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.