Bug 701450

*** Bug 701440 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

$ rpmlint -v *
pygtkchart.src: I: checking
pygtkchart.src: I: checking-url http://notmyname.github.com/pygtkChart/ (timeout 10 seconds)
pygtkchart.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/notmyname/pygtkChart/tarball/beta/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
pygtkchart.noarch: I: checking
pygtkchart.noarch: I: checking-url http://notmyname.github.com/pygtkChart/ (timeout 10 seconds)
pygtkchart.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/notmyname/pygtkChart/tarball/beta/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

No issues.

Would be nice to add a comment to the spec what the patch does.

Some things are still to be fixed:

- The package seems to provide a pre-release as the tarball is tagged as beta. Thus, the Release field should look like this: 0.1.git%{git}%{?dist}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages

- Prefix the patch name with %{name}- or %{name}-%{version}- and, as Mario 
  already mentioned, add a comment about what the patch does.

- The package currently doesn't own %{_datadir}/%{name}/

* Sat May 21 2011 Fabian Affolter <fabian> - 0-0.2.gitg8a56364
- Fixed naming
- Fixed directory ownership
- Patch renamed and comment added

Here are the updated files:

Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pygtkchart.spec
SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/pygtkchart-0-0.2.gitg8a56364.fc15.src.rpm

Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[+] 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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

The sources (*.py) mention GPLv2+ (like the .spec), but the PKG-INFO ist just GPL. There is no COPYING-file, assuming the source is correct and the license is GPLv2+.

[+] 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, as provided in the spec URL.

> $ sha1sum notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz SOURCES/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz 
> 4b638c53f86ece358621df72e2e0b3472fd626fb  notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz
> 4b638c53f86ece358621df72e2e0b3472fd626fb  SOURCES/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.

tested local mock (f14) and koji (f15):
- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3111957

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


SHOULD Items:
[=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3111957

[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.


Summary:
All fine. Note that you have to contact upstream to include a COPYING file and have them update the PKG-INFO (Home-page and license) as well.

Review passed and setting fedora-review+. Re-assigning to you (Fabian) now so that you can request fedora-cvs.

Thanks for the review, Niels.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Summary:
> All fine. Note that you have to contact upstream to include a COPYING file and
> have them update the PKG-INFO (Home-page and license) as well.

https://github.com/notmyname/pygtkChart/issues/19

> Review passed and setting fedora-review+. Re-assigning to you (Fabian) now so
> that you can request fedora-cvs.

That's wrong. As far as I remember should the Review Request stay assined to the reviewer. I can change the flags without being assigned.

New Package VCS Request
=======================
Package Name:  pygtkchart
Short Description: A GTK chart widget written in Python
Owners: fab
Branches: F14 F15
InitialCC:

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:  pygtkchart
Short Description: A GTK chart widget written in Python
Owners: fab
Branches: f14 f15
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).