Bug 717502

Don't ship .la files. .so belong in a devel sub-package.

License is GPLv3+.

-n %{name}-%{version} is unnecessary.

Docs should be installed with the %doc macro in the files section.

Some BuildRequires are not needed, e.g. make (see packaging guidelines). I guess the version requirements are unneeded too.

The version in the changelog entries are wrong.

Please check if all your files in %doc are useful. INSTALL is not.

Dont forget to include rpmlint output on your request.

Im having rpaths issues:


ERROR   0001: file '/usr/bin/i4uc-gtk' contains a standard rpath '/usr/lib64' in [/usr/lib64]


Please fix it.

I dont understand why the src.rpm has the arch in the name, im not able to reproduce with your spec and rpmbuild -bs .

I'll review, Toshio will sponsor.

Here the files with the corrections...

SPEC: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc.spec
SRPM: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.src.rpm
RPM_F15_32bits: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.i686.rpm
RPM_F15_64bits: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm

rpmlint outputs:

rpmlint -i SPECS/i4uc.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint -i RPMS/i686/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.i686.rpm 
i4uc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i4uc-gtk
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

rpmlint -i SRPMS/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

 rpmlint -i SPECS/i4uc.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint -i SRPMS/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/i4uc-0.5.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
i4uc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i4uc-gtk
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Please increase your %realese with every change u make to your spec (or pile up several changes in on release and make several changelog entries, i like the more atomic approach)

Release: 1%{dist} < fix it please.

Your changelog actually is showing correct behaviour but release is wrong and static. According your changelog, your release should be:

Release: 3%{dist}

U can also get rid of

%clean
make clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean

Please use macros in a consistent way:


rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/INSTALL
rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/%{name}/*.so

Choose between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}

All changes are done.

The updates and new version of the files is in: 

http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/

All changes are done.

The updates and new version of the files is in: 

http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/

Here the corrected SPEC file

SPEC: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc.spec

%changelog release numbers are still wrong (all entries points to 0.5.6-1)

Release: 4%{dist}
...

%changelog
* Thu Jun 30 2011 lletelier <larry.letelier> - 0.5.6-1
- Fixed Release
- Sed RPM_BUILD_ROOT -> buildroot
- Clean, clean.

* Wed Jun 29 2011 lletelier <larry.letelier> - 0.5.6-1
- Fixed Licence GPLv3+
- Add doc macro section
- Remove .la static library
- Remove unnecessary entries
- Add i4uc.mo language file

* Mon Jun 27 2011 lletelier <larry.letelier> - 0.5.6-1
- Fixed docs 

* Sun Jun 12 2011 germanrs <germanrs> - 0.5.6-1
- Initial package

Next time, fix old entries, bump the release and create a new changelog (0.5.6-5)

Please post spec url, srpm url, and rpmlint outputs for the next time.

SPEC url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc.spec

SRPM url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-5.fc15.src.rpm

rpmlint: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/rpmlint_f15_0.5.6-5.txt

Please use the %doc macro instead of %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/...!

You could also include THANKS.

I think the icon should go to %{_datadir}/pixmaps and the icon entry in the desktop file should reflect that. Ideally, it should be stated as mentioned here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Icon_tag_in_Desktop_Files

Please change the permission of your spec file to 644.

mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES -- Why that? You could put in some comments.

"... for developing micro-controllers firmware" -- Shouldn't that be "micro-controller"? Don't spell "Multiple" with a capital M in the description. Descriptions normally end with a period.

You can drop the defattr line.

Since some of your BRs are not available in EPEL, you can remove:

- Build root definition
- rm -rf %{buildroot}

If you plan to get the missing dependencies into EPEL, please ignore that suggestion.

Larry Letelier is going to finish this package, so from now he is going to make all the changes and the ownership of the project.

He also needs a sponsor.

Any progress here?

i will doing the last changes and upload the new versions.

(In reply to comment #18)
> Any progress here?

The last changes are here: 02-Nov
http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/

i wait next steps.

I'm willing to sponsor when the review is complete.  Just let me know.

(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > Any progress here?
> 
> The last changes are here: 02-Nov
> http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/
> 
> i wait next steps.

Please include links to srpm/spec plus rpmlint output (must be a habit)

(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > (In reply to comment #18)
> > > Any progress here?
> > 
> > The last changes are here: 02-Nov
> > http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/
> > 
> > i wait next steps.
> 
> Please include links to srpm/spec plus rpmlint output (must be a habit)

Dear Guillermo,

The rpmlint/srpm file was uploaded here:

http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/

Thanks,
--LL

I know the files are there (spec/srpm), however, if for any reason rpmlint outuput goes removed from such host, then there will be no evidence here about it.

So just as a habit, please put here explicit links to both spec and srpm file and include here the rmplint output :)

Specific:

[!] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.

Please review: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in %install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure .desktop file safety and spec-compliance.

Guillermo:

Changes & updates: 

SPEC url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc.spec

SRPM url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc15.src.rpm

RPM x86_64 url: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm

rpmlint: http://lletelier.fedorapeople.org/i4uc/i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc15.x86_64.txt

Thanks,
--LL

Please include rpmlint output for rpm binaries too in the future.

MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

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 Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.


==== Generic ====
[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 All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[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 Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
     file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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 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.
[x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc16.x86_64.rpm

i4uc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i4uc-gtk
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint i4uc-debuginfo-0.5.6-9.fc16.x86_64.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc16.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/gomix/rpmbuild/717502/i4uc-0.5.6.tar.bz2 :
  MD5SUM this package     : 44f9028a5779aea9aa729bd0b6f128cf
  MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e

[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 File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present (not blocking)
     Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. (not blocking)

rpmlint i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc16.x86_64.rpm

i4uc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i4uc-gtk
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint i4uc-debuginfo-0.5.6-9.fc16.x86_64.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint i4uc-0.5.6-9.fc16.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/gomix/rpmbuild/717502/i4uc-0.5.6.tar.bz2 :
  MD5SUM this package     : 44f9028a5779aea9aa729bd0b6f128cf
  MD5SUM upstream package : d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e

This is a blocker for me, please review this issue carefully and come back for final approval 

Guillermo

After some reviews with Larry, everything is clear to go, md5 issue was a problem in my latpop.

--------------------------------------------------------
  This package (i4uc) is APPROVED by gomix
--------------------------------------------------------

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: i4uc
Short Description: Multiple platform IDE for developing micro-controller firmware
Owners: lletelier
Branches: f15 f16 f17
InitialCC: Lletelier Gomix

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: i4uc
Short Description: Multiple platform IDE for developing micro-controller firmware
Owners: lletelier
Branches: f15 f16 f17
InitialCC: Lletelier Gomix

Please include only valid FAS account names in InitialCC.  gomix, please set
fedora-review flag to +.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: i4uc
Short Description: Multiple platform IDE for developing micro-controller
firmware
Owners: lletelier
Branches: f15 f16 f17
InitialCC: Lletelier

FAS usernames are case-sensitive, wait for review to be + before resetting
cvs flag.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: i4uc
Short Description: Multiple platform IDE for developing micro-controller
firmware
Owners: lletelier
Branches: f15 f16 f17
InitialCC: lletelier

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Larry, I just saw, you haven't entered your builds into Bodhi yet.

I also noticed there are no working builds for F17 and 18.

The problem seems to be in the pkgconfig file of new libgee.

German, you never registered any of your builds as an update. Therefore, i4uc is not available in Fedora. The F15 and F16 builds were garbage collected and no newer builds exist, see the above post.

Please create builds and register them as updates.

Any news here?

I think you should either fix this package or it should be retired, so we can finally close this ticket.

No response, closing

I retired and blocked the package.  If anyone else wants to start this review process over, they'll need to remember to file the releng ticket to have the package unblocked.