Bug 707720

*** Bug 706609 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Package scratch built in Koji here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3092500

Emil could you give this package a try to make sure it is working for you?

Works perfectly. I am currently surfing over batman-adv which was configured using batctl. Thanks

Hi,

can you update the package to the latest release so we can start the review ?

Also, :
- Buildroot should be removed, as this is no longer needed

- %doc should include the license ( and so you should ask upstream to ship the license )

- rm -rf %{buildroot} in beggining of %install, %defattr and %clean are uneeded for latest fedora

and more important, it seems the module is not compiled in fedora 16 kernel :/ ( not blocking for review, but annoying for testing and usage, so I would suggest asking to have it enabled ).

Ping ?

Sorry, I wasn't motivated to hurry afer so long a wait...

Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~linville/batctl.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~linville/batctl-2012.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm

I removed the references to buildroot, defattr, and clean.

Please cite the requirement to include the license in %doc.  Each of the source files (even the Makefile!) contains license information already.

I'll take care of enabling the kernel option once this package is approved.  If you need test kernels built, then let me know.

Yup, that's how I understand that :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

Thanks for the reference.  It seems rather clear that since the source package does not include a license file, then including the non-existant file in %doc is not required.  I'll send a note to the upstream folks to see about changing that in the future.

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.


==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
     /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/707720-batctl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: batctl-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          batctl-debuginfo-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          batctl-2012.2.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
batctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US traceroute -> trace route, trace-route, outrace
batctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster
batctl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
batctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US traceroute -> trace route, trace-route, outrace
batctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> dumpster
batctl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
batctl-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    libc.so.6()(64bit)  
    libm.so.6()(64bit)  
    rtld(GNU_HASH)  

batctl-debuginfo-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    

Provides
--------
batctl-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    batctl = 2012.2.0-1.fc17
    batctl(x86-64) = 2012.2.0-1.fc17

batctl-debuginfo-2012.2.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
    
    batctl-debuginfo = 2012.2.0-1.fc17
    batctl-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2012.2.0-1.fc17

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.open-mesh.org/batman/stable/sources/batctl/batctl-2012.2.0.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 7abd284098c514d3f2858e8a956c495e
  MD5SUM upstream package : 7abd284098c514d3f2858e8a956c495e


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 707720
External plugins:


Too bad, this would have been a nice feature for f18 ( but deadline is today ).

Anyway, it should be approved.

you need to set the fedora-cvs flag to ? 
since I approved the package ( or perhaps you are in holiday, I do not know )

Package Name: batctl
Short Description: B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced control and management tool
Owners: linville
Branches: f18
InitialCC: linville

Misformatted request:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests

*sigh*

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: batctl
Short Description: B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced control and management tool
Owners: linville
Branches: f18
InitialCC: linville

Git done (by process-git-requests).

f18 not yet branched.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: batctl
New Branches: epel7
Owners: heffer linville

Git done (by process-git-requests).