Bug 697680

$ rpmlint -v *
surf-geometry.src: I: checking
surf-geometry.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codimension -> co dimension, co-dimension, dimensional
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Just a little spelling error.

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3029609

The build fails due to problems in the autoconf stack:

configure.in:142: warning: macro `AM_PATH_GTK' not found in library
configure.in:142: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_PATH_GTK
      If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
      See the Autoconf documentation.

(from build.log, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3029610&name=build.log)

Actually, "codimension" is correct, but the standard dictionary does not contain such mathematical terminology.

As for the autoconf problem ... yes, that's been the story of this package. :-)  I believe I have it fixed now.  (A mock build succeeds.)  Here is the new version:

http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/surf-geometry/surf-geometry.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/surf-geometry/surf-geometry-1.0.6-2.fc14.src.rpm

Koji scratch build is successful:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3034200

$ rpmlint -v *
surf-geometry.src: I: checking
surf-geometry.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codimension -> co dimension, co-dimension, dimensional
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.i686: I: checking
surf-geometry.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codimension -> co dimension, co-dimension, dimensional
surf-geometry.i686: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/COPYING
surf-geometry.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary surf-geometry
surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

The warnings are related to a false positive spelling error. The wrong FSF address I have already encountered recently in bug #699586. Well, it doesn't affect the build process, but it's worth an upstream bug.

The gtk+ requirement is odd, but you have explained this in the ChangeLog. But as far I know, gtk+-devel requires X11-devel. In my mind, no need to mention it explicitely.

Good point.  But I'm starting to think that I should solve the problem another way.  I think I should do the autoreconf step on some machine with gtk+-devel installed, to pick up the AM_PATH_GTK definition, then generate a (probably rather large) patch against the whole autoconf infrastructure.  That way, we can do away with the gtk+-devel BR, leaving just the libX11-devel BR.

I'll let upstream know about the FSF address problem.

I'll post new URLs when I finish all this.

As predicted, the -configure patch got big, but we can drop the gtk+-devel and automake BRs now.  New URLs:

http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/surf-geometry/surf-geometry.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/surf-geometry/surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc14.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3057965

$ rpmlint -v *
surf-geometry.src: I: checking
surf-geometry.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codimension -> co dimension, co-dimension, dimensional
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.i686: I: checking
surf-geometry.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codimension -> co dimension, co-dimension, dimensional
surf-geometry.i686: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/COPYING
surf-geometry.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary surf-geometry
surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://surf.sourceforge.net/ (timeout 10 seconds)
surf-geometry.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/1.0.6/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

OK so far.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    GPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum *
    598142168e940a818c7b5a7a66b35082  surf-1.0.6.tar.gz
    598142168e940a818c7b5a7a66b35082  surf-1.0.6.tar.gz.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    - Succesful Koji build available.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache
must be updated.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[x] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
    %{_datadir}/surf-geometry
    just put a / after this entry to let the package own this folder and its content.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that
information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled.
[.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information,
the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
    separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream...
[+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
    See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway)
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
    I assume the packager has tested it.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

Thanks for the review, Mario.

(In reply to comment #6)
> [x] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
>     %{_datadir}/surf-geometry
>     just put a / after this entry to let the package own this folder and its
> content.

I don't understand.  I have this in %files:

%{_datadir}/surf-geometry

and after installing, I see that that directory is owned:

$ rpm -ql surf-geometry
/usr/bin/surf-geometry
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/README
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/TODO
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/background.pic
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/manual-1.html
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/manual-2.html
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/manual-3.html
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/manual-4.html
/usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/manual.html
/usr/share/man/man1/surf.1.gz
/usr/share/mime/packages/surf.xml
/usr/share/surf-geometry
/usr/share/surf-geometry/surf.xpm

Mario, can we finish this review?  I've shown you that the one issue you marked as needing work doesn't really need work.  Is there anything else?

Sorry, I forget about this. But I've less time left for the packaging things last time. From my side, all is OK now. Regarding the directory ownership I was a bit mislead by the packaging guidelines which show a slash appended to the folder path.

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

After some weeks, I would expect a SCM request from reporter's side.

+1, really would like to see this package in Fedora ;)

(In reply to comment #11)
> +1, really would like to see this package in Fedora ;)

Yes, and I could review surfer, which depends on surf-geometry...

The package has been approved, but the packager doesn't response for a long time. Don't know if we should close the bug report (and #700587 too, which depends on it and came from the same packager).

Because we didn't get a response from the packager within a reasonable time, I will close this bug now.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 840244 ***