Bug 815951

I'll review it

Few notes:

* You may drop %clean section entirely. I believe this package isn't intended to run on onl EL boxes.
* Unowned directories
** %{_libdir}/weston/
** %{_libdir}/weston/
Either specifically mark them as %dir in the %files section or change %files section to that

%{_bindir}/weston
%{_bindir}/weston-launch
%{_bindir}/weston-terminal
%{_libdir}/weston/
%{_libexecdir}/weston-*
%{_datadir}/weston/

* I don't like this line
autoreconf -v --install || exit 1
So if autoreconf were fail for whatever reason what would we expect then? Successful building?
Can you simplify this to "autoreconv -ivf" (notice -f switch)?

* License field is wron. Must be "BSD and CC-BY-SA". The latter is for content.

Otherwise it looks fine for me.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but these messages are harmless.

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint weston-*
weston.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way land, way-land
weston.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0770L
weston.src: W: invalid-url Source0: weston-20120424.tar.bz2
weston.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way land, way-land
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-terminal
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-launch
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.

+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines except the notes stated above.

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.

- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. See above.

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (or for the part of the package), MUST be included in %doc. Please mark data/COPYRIGHT as %doc.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the Source1. 
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. See my notes above.

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.

+ The package has an empty %clean section, which is ok but weird a bit.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain devel-libraries files.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application in a commot sense (no need to have a *.desktop file)
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, address/explain my notes and I'll finish it.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Few notes:
> 
> * You may drop %clean section entirely. I believe this package isn't intended
> to run on onl EL boxes.

Correct, fixed.

> * Unowned directories
> ** %{_libdir}/weston/
> ** %{_libdir}/weston/
> Either specifically mark them as %dir in the %files section or change %files
> section to that

Fixed, thanks.

> * I don't like this line
> autoreconf -v --install || exit 1
> So if autoreconf were fail for whatever reason what would we expect then?
> Successful building?
> Can you simplify this to "autoreconv -ivf" (notice -f switch)?

Yup, done.

> * License field is wron. Must be "BSD and CC-BY-SA". The latter is for content.

Agreed, fixed.

> So, please, address/explain my notes and I'll finish it.

New files: 
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/weston.spec
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/weston-0.89-0.3.fc17.src.rpm

Thanks for the super-quick turnaround.

Richard.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Few notes:
...
> > * Unowned directories
> > ** %{_libdir}/weston/
> > ** %{_libdir}/weston/
> > Either specifically mark them as %dir in the %files section or change %files
> > section to that
> 
> Fixed, thanks.

This one is still unowned:

%{_libdir}/weston/

Except of that (and assuming that you'll fix it shortly) I don't see any other issues so this package is


APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: weston
Short Description: Reference compositor for Wayland
Owners: rhughes
Branches: f17
InitialCC: rhughes

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Thanks guys!

Is there a reason this is not also in Fedora 17? The compositor was removed from the wayland package, but this replacement doesn't seem to have appeared there.