Bug 699168

CCing Volker Fröhlich as a potential reviewer for this package.

Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino.spec
SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino-1.5.1-2.fc14.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3022895

* Sun Apr 24 2011 Kevin Kofler <…> - 1.5.1-2
- Install ChangeLog

(The upstream makefiles install all other docs, but not the license or the changelog. This is probably due to Debian policies, which say not to install those files. In Fedora, we want them installed. I had already fixed it for the license in -1, I also added the changelog in -2.)

Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino.spec
SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino-1.5.1-3.fc14.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3024047

* Mon Apr 25 2011 Kevin Kofler <…> - 1.5.1-3
- Use install -p instead of cp -pf to install executables, to ensure 755 perms

(Volker told me on IRC that the binaries got installed with 775 permissions when building locally with a 022 umask. This should fix that.)

> when building locally with a 022 umask

Oops, I meant "when building locally with a 002 umask", as opposed to the 022 umask Koji is applying.

Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino.spec
SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f16/routino-1.5.1-4.fc14.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3024477

* Mon Apr 25 2011 Kevin Kofler <…> - 1.5.1-4
- Better Group and BuildRoot tags (Volker Fröhlich)
- Add -b to the patch invocation (suggested by Volker Fröhlich)
- Add a README-MARBLE.txt documenting how to set up Routino for use with Marble
- Get rid of installation documentation which is not applicable to the RPM

[+] Good
[x] Needs work
[0] Does not apply

MUST:
=====

[+] rpmlint:

routino.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
routino.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-planetsplitter-slim
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-tagmodifier
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-filedumper-slim
routino.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary routino-router-slim
routino-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
routino.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dataset -> data set, data-set, database
routino.src: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.

Upstream doesn't provide man-pages. AGPLv3+ was forgotten to be listed as a valid license. That's solved in the wiki so far (Spot).

[+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name
[+] Packaging guidelines met
[+] License approved for Fedora
[+] License field in spec matches code
[+] License file included, if source package includes it
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum: a664772cfa7ba413cd16eae59321c644
[+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture:

See KK above!

[0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented
[0] Locales are handled correctly
[+] All build dependencies listed
[0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries
[0] No bundled system libraries
[0] Stated as relocatable package
[+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does
[+] No file listing duplicates
[+] File permissions correct
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Code or permissible content
[0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage
[+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc
[0] Header files in -devel subpackage
[0] Static files in -static subpackage
[0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage
[0] Devel-package requires base package
[0] No .la libtool archives
[0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file
[+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own
[+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8

SHOULD:
=======

[0] Query upstream if no license text is included
[+] Package builds in mock: Rawhide, EPEL 6
[?] Package works as described -- Haven't tried
[0] Scriptlets are sane, if used
[0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned)
[0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage
[0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider
requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself
[x] Contain man pages, where they make sense

Probably query upstream on this issue.

--------
APPROVED
--------

FYI, I've tested the package and it works for me.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: routino
Short Description: Router for OpenStreetMap Data
Owners: kkofler
Branches: f15 f14 f13
InitialCC:

Volker, if you want to request branches for el6 and possibly el5 with you as the owner, feel free, that is hereby approved by me.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: routino
New Branches: el6
Owners: volter

This package does not appear to be in pkgdb currently; we can't add an EL6
branch for it.

That's because the comment above requests the creation of the package. :-)

These things are processed by scripts.  The scripts look only at the last
request in the ticket.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: routino
Short Description: Router for OpenStreetMap Data
Owners: kkofler
Branches: f15 f14 f13 el6
InitialCC:

We can reassign ownership in pkgdb afterwards…

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Imported, built for Rawhide, builds and Bodhi updates for the releases coming soon.