Bug 608066

You should fix the error and warning. Neither are hard.

For the error just replace %{_prefix}/lib with %{_libdir}. Unless that doesn't work because the program places the file in lib regardless? Perhaps there's a config option that will help that.

The warning is simple. You should specify the Source0 as a download link for the tarball, not just its name.

the warning about %{_prefix} can not be remove because %{_libdir} = /usr/lib | /usr/lib64 or here is always /usr/lib
and this warning is for:
rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/.empty

i remove an empty file i put any file in %{_prefix}/lib

Anf or Source i use upstream and in comment they are all information

link to guideline for name: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages

i have update spec file, all is put here: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/

this empty file is removed because it's never used. "lib" is explicitely used instead of %_libdir because it's always used (not arch dependant).

As I'm using a mercurial repo for the source, I can' t provide a download link, but the tarball creation process is explained in spec comments

Upstream doesn't release source tarballs I see. That's extremely weird, and you should strongly pressure them to publish tars of the source alongside their binaries. That said, its ok to do it this way for now.

Give me a little more time to check the rest of the guidelines.

No problem :)
here review guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

I'd update your comment about how to build the tarball to explain /why/ that exercise must be gone through and what the upstream situation is. Beyond that I'd say this is set. Do you need a sponsor?

i need a review :)
(is not my first package)

@Casey Dahlin

Hi, it seems you are not sponsor, so you cannot approve this package. But you can unofficial review which I would count this to be, even though this review request is messed up.

Undone fedora-review tag and updating summary. Also added FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blocker list.

Jonathan is already sponsored, as he said...
   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/bioinfornatics

@Casey Dahlin

Ok, my bad, as Jonathan is already sponsored - in case you consider this as approved mark the flag.

Don't forget to change status as well.

I don't see anything in the review process about a status change, though I do see I need to actually assign it to myself.

(In reply to comment #8)
> i need a review :)
> (is not my first package)    

You can request for cvs and import.

@Casey

Actually "I need a review" comment even after approval and wrong summary message confused me. Moreover generally reviewers tend to paste a check list and "approved" message in comments (both of which are not mandatory but common practice) in review requests which was not present here.

same as said Rakesh Pandit : ideally is paste here all NEED and SHOULD statement here and add foreach a comment: ok, available or not sometime you need explain more.
statement here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Now if Casey Dahlin said 'i can request cvs' so ths review is finish

@Rakesh: I'll keep that in mind.

@Jonathan: Go ahead and make your CVS request.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xautomation
Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language
Owners: bioinfornatics
Branches: F-12 F-13

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ldc
Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language
Owners: bioinfornatics
Branches: F-12 F-13

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

This is not NOTABUG. Closing as CURRENTRELEASE.