Bug 551913

URL correction

http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-vala-2.2-1.fc13.src.rpm

I'll look at this.

First, koji won't build that: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1939180

Second, why do you create a devel packake if there are no files to go in there? And there is a typo (Vata -> Vala) in the devel description.

SRC : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-vala-2.2-2.fc13.src.rpm   
SPEC : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-vala.spec

Fixes the empty devel package and build deps.
Fixes nodoc problem

Just one remark:

- URL does not match the link on the download page and so the sources differ from upstream - please use:
http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/sources/monodevelop-vala/monodevelop-vala-2.2.tar.bz2

SRC :
http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-vala-2.2-3.fc13.src.rpm   
SPEC : http://www.all-the-johnsons.co.uk/fedora/monodevelop-vala.spec

Fixes the above

    * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
monodevelop-vala.i686: E: no-binary
monodevelop-vala.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-vala.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (space
 10)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

"no-binary" and "only-non-binary-in-usr-lib" are false positives. Please fix the use of spaces and tabs.


    * 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.
OK
    * 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.
OK
    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
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.
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 have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK
    * 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK


    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK

############################

Please fix the use of spaces and tabs in the spec file.


This package is APPROVED.

Thanks :-)

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: monodevelop-vala
Short Description: Vala plugin for monodevelop
Owners: pfj
Branches: F-11 F-12 rawhide
InitialCC: pfj

Paul, think you should set the cvs-request flag to '?' !?

d'oh!

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

NOTE: rawhide is not a branch, thats 'devel', which you always get. 
and no need to add the owner to initialcc, owners get assigned bugs, so 
they always get email. ;)

And it's in!