Bug 625592

I still need a sponsor, I will apply to the packager group as soon as possible. 

With kind regards,

Fabian Kanngießer

The license text file says "GPL version 3 or higher" I updated this in my specfile to GPLv3+. Here are the new srpm and koji scratchbuild:

http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam-0.3-2.fc13.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2413810

With kind regards,

Fabian Kanngießer

I added another dependency which I have not seen from the beginning.

New SRPM: http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm

New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2413850

I've got two small notes so far:

As described at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL, you should
be able to shorten the download URL for/from Sourceforge.

Readability improvement *suggestions*:
* preceed section introducing keywords consistently by two empty lines, e.g.
  between the last Requires and the %description keyword.
* leave a blank line between changelog entries.
* use more than one space for intendation.

I could not find any regressions so far. The package builds fine for
me (tried via rpmbuild and mock). The program starts up and seems to work
(as far as I can see as a non-specialist for CAD).

I'd be glad to see you sponsored to get a formal review done. :)

% rpmlint pycam.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

% rpmlint pycam-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

% rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pycam-0.3-3.fc14.noarch.rpm
pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

There actually is a manpage, but it is not installed.

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
 [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
 [-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
     supported architecture.
     This is a noarch package.
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     source RPM: empty
     binary RPM: man page not installed, see above.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
     License: GPLv3+

     Just to mention: There is an SVG file claiming to be Creative Commons.


 [X] License file is included in %doc.
 [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
 [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
     SHA1SUM of Source: 1c5135c2c531574013f3491884607512f44f7e5c
 [x] Package compiles successfully
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
 [-] Specfile handles locales properly
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] Package owns directorys it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
 [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
 [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Macros are consistently used
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
 [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
 [-] Header files are in a -devel package
 [-] Static libraries are in a -static package
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
 [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
 [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
 [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
 [x] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install
 [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package contains latest upstream version
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] non-English translations for description and summary
 [x] Package builds in mock
     Tested on: F14/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures.
     tested build with koji
 [x] Program runs
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
 [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

I think the additional source file for the desktop can be removed, since the
pycam-0.3 tarball delivers exactly the same file. You also should fix the man
page issue. Anything else looks good so far and the package is APPROVED.

Hi, I'd like to be this package's owner, if the original submitter has lost interest.

Here is a package updated to the latest release, PyCAM 0.5.1.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam.spec
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-0.el6.src.rpm

I set the review flag and will clear some of the dependencies.

Quick spec review. Very clean overall!

Nitpicks:
- Blank line between %description and text. I'm not sure if that would show up in the final rpm -qi / yum info or not.

- It doesn't matter in this case because you're not returning to the source directory, but in general, pushd/popd is much better than using cd/cd .. 

- Unless you're going to support EL 5, I'm pretty sure you don't need:
-- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
-- %clean at all

If you did want to support EL 5 I think you would need %{defattr} in %files.

- Fabian had some extraneous spaces in the "-" in the changelog and one "." instead of a "-".

(In reply to comment #7)
> Quick spec review. Very clean overall!
> 
> Nitpicks:
> - Blank line between %description and text. I'm not sure if that would show
> up in the final rpm -qi / yum info or not.

Removed.  I actually like the blank line, because my editor can re-wrap the description text without wrapping up '%description' with it.  That's my editor's fault, though.

> - It doesn't matter in this case because you're not returning to the source
> directory, but in general, pushd/popd is much better than using cd/cd .. 

Fixed.  This actually bit me right before I saw this when I added something at the end of the script that expected to be in the source directory.  :P  Good catch.

> - Unless you're going to support EL 5, I'm pretty sure you don't need:
> -- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
> -- %clean at all

Removed.

> If you did want to support EL 5 I think you would need %{defattr} in %files.

Nope!

> - Fabian had some extraneous spaces in the "-" in the changelog and one "."
> instead of a "-".

Ahh, good eye.  Fixed.

Also realized that upstream provides a better .desktop file, so Source1: is removed.

New src.rpm and .spec (koji scratch-build for el6, f17 & f18 all succeed):

http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4567/5224567/pycam-0.5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

https://github.com/zultron/pycam-rpm/blob/master/pycam.spec

Looks like the koji link expired or something. Perhaps you could put in on your fedorapeople.org account if you have one (or use something like dropbox, which is what I do).

Hi Richard, here're specfile and srpm in dropbox:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam.spec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-1.el6.src.rpm

Thanks!

Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package must contain BR: python2-devel or python3-devel, not just python-
  devel.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
  Note: desktop file(s) in pycam
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Icons seem to be available in share/mime for some reason. You will need to
  install those manually in the spec file.
- The man page is built but not installed. Should be installed manually then.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/build/625592-pycam/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
     such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pycam-0.5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
pycam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolpath -> tool path, tool-path, towpath
pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pycam-0.5.1/LICENSE.TXT
pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pycam/doc/LICENSE.TXT
pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint pycam
pycam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolpath -> tool path, tool-path, towpath
pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pycam-0.5.1/LICENSE.TXT
pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pycam/doc/LICENSE.TXT
pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
pycam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    PyOpenGL
    pygtk2
    pygtkglext
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
pycam:
    mimehandler(application/postscript)
    mimehandler(application/sla)
    mimehandler(image/svg+xml)
    mimehandler(image/vnd.dxf)
    pycam



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pycam/pycam/0.5.1/pycam-0.5.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e26a6db82efa4761a1db6b81de3165898430d5c14d09614b67321105d67e264c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e26a6db82efa4761a1db6b81de3165898430d5c14d09614b67321105d67e264c


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 625592

Since I took so long to get to this I figured I could take care of the problem for you!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/pycam.spec

Of course compare with yours to make sure you agree.

Wow, gosh, you did all the hard part!  Silly I didn't find some of those problems myself.  Great job on the review, as always, thank you!

Updated spec and srpm:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/pycam.spec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-2.el6.src.rpm

Looks good to me!

*** APPROVED ***

Thanks again, Richard.

Setting fedora-cvs flag to '?'.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pycam
Short Description: Open Source CAM - Toolpath Generation for 3-Axis CNC machining
Owners: zultron
Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6
InitialCC:

Hrm, cvs flag set to '-', resetting to '?'.

Requested package name pycam doesn't match bug summary PyCAM, please
correct.

Request title fixed.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

pycam-0.5.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.el6

pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19

pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18

pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

pycam-0.5.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.