Bug 676668

For refenece, scratch build:
  http://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/brew/taskinfo?taskID=3102223

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/cmake/cmake-2.6.4-5.el5.3.src.rpm

I noticed cmake is already packaged for EPEL.  Changing the release number so that it's possible to upgrade from the EPEL package to this one.  (And still from this one to the one in RHEL 6.)

(In reply to comment #2)
> I noticed cmake is already packaged for EPEL.  Changing the release number so
> that it's possible to upgrade from the EPEL package to this one.  (And still
> from this one to the one in RHEL 6.)

Have you informed to the EPEL maintainer about this?

(In reply to comment #3)
> Have you informed to the EPEL maintainer about this?

I have now.

I've found that the review of cmake for Fedora/EPEL is really old (bug #184467), apparently from the time before many of the current guidelines were in place. Please work with the Fedora/EPEL maintainers to resolve problems found here in Fedora/EPEL packages as well. Thanks.

Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package.
Items marked "CHECK" aren't covered by the guidelines but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion.
Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed.
Items marked "N/A" can't be reviewed in the current state.

* BAD: rpmlint gives this:

nils@gibraltar:~/devel/reviews/rhel/cmake> rpmlint cmake-2.6.4-5.el5.3.src.rpm 
cmake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US makefiles -> make files, make-files, makefast
cmake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee
cmake.src: W: strange-permission macros.cmake 0777L
cmake.src: W: strange-permission cmake-2.6.4-vtk64.patch 0777L
cmake.src: W: strange-permission cmake.spec 0777L
cmake.src: W: strange-permission cmake-2.6.4.tar.gz 0777L
cmake.src: W: strange-permission cmake-ppc64-awtdir.patch 0777L
cmake.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{nil}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

==> "makefiles" is okay, but it's "preprocessor", not "pre-processor". Fix the permissions on the files so that they aren't world-writable or executable. Escape the macro in the comment as %%{nil} (some macros have side-effects even if inside comments, better avoid that).

* GOOD: named according to naming guidelines
* GOOD: spec file matches package name
* GOOD: meets licensing guidelines
* GOOD: license in spec file matches actual license
* BAD:  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.
* GOOD: spec file written in American English
* GOOD: spec file is legible
* GOOD: sources used to build the package match the upstream source
* GOOD: package compiles and builds into binary rpms
* GOOD: build deps listed as BRs
* PASS: no locale data in pkg
* PASS: no library files in linker default paths
* GOOD: does not bundle system libraries
* GOOD: not relocatable
* GOOD/CHECK: owns all directories it creates. NB: doesn't apply if the gui subpackage will be built (e.g. Fedora/EPEL(?)) as it has files in %{_datadir}/mime but doesn't require the shared-mime-info package.
* GOOD: lists files only once
* GOOD: file permissions set properly
* GOOD: pkg consistently uses macros
* GOOD: pkg contains code and permissible content
* BAD: documentation is not marked with %doc
* PASS: documentation small enough not to be shipped in separate -doc subpackage
* N/A: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
* PASS: no header files
* PASS: no static libraries
* PASS: no library files with suffix
* PASS: no -devel package
* PASS: no libraries, i.e. no *.la files
(* GOOD: the -gui package, if built, ships properly installed desktop files)
* GOOD: pkg doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
* GOOD: all files names are valid UTF-8

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/cmake/cmake-2.6.4-5.el5.4.src.rpm

I uploaded a package that fixes the issues that you have raised.

GOOD: rpmlint problems fixes ("preprocessor", macros, permissions):

nils@gibraltar:~/devel/reviews/rhel/cmake> rpmlint cmake-2.6.4-5.el5.4.src.rpm 
cmake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US makefiles -> make files, make-files, makefast
cmake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> preprocessed, processor, preprofessional
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

GOOD: Copyright.txt installed as documentation
(GOOD: -gui subpackage requires shared-mime-info for %{_datadir}/mime)
GOOD: documentation is marked as %doc

GOOD/CHECK: package compiles and builds into binary rpms, but only after I repacked it (à la "rpm -i *.src.rpm; rpmbuild-md5 -bs .../SPECS/cmake.spec"). You may want to check the brew logs of the failed scratch build:

https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/brew/taskinfo?taskID=3146934
https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/getfile?taskID=3146935&name=root.log

This package is APPROVED.

Uh, "rpmlint fixes problems obviously", that's what I get for posting before coffee.