Spec URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren.spec SRPM URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren-0.0.16-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: Seren is a simple VoIP program based on the Opus codec that allows you to create a voice conference from the terminal, with up to 10 participants, without having to register accounts, exchange emails, or add people to contact lists. All you need to join an existing conference is the host name or IP address of one of the participants. Seren creates a dynamic peer-to-peer network of equivalent nodes which exchange text and audio data using a udp connection, and offers the user the ability to change the quality/bitrate on the fly, encrypt the traffic and record the calls. Fedora Account System Username: frafra This is my first package and I need a sponsor. This package build successfully for EPEL 6/7 and F18/19/20/21, x86/arm/ppc64. Here's a Koji build for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6365171 This is my Copr repository for this package: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/frafra/seren/ I really like this program and I talk almost everyday on #seren (irc.freenode.org) with the creator of this program (Holden - Giorgio Vazzana), in order to do some testing, give some feedback, and it's ok with this spec file.
Hi Francesco. Just few comments. - Description has too long lines. - Documentation files (above all the license file) are missing; the source archive provides them. ;) See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation - %doc %{_mandir}/man1/seren.1.gz Don't mark this line as %doc. - Where did you take that patch from ? Does it come from upstream or is it your ? Please leave a comment or a link. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment - Changelog already starts with a release number 2 ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > Hi Francesco. > Just few comments. > > - Description has too long lines. I tried to fix it. > - Documentation files (above all the license file) are missing; the source > archive provides them. ;) > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > - %doc %{_mandir}/man1/seren.1.gz > Don't mark this line as %doc. Fixed. > - Where did you take that patch from ? Does it come from upstream or is it > your ? It's mine. > Please leave a comment or a link. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Commented. Should I write that is mine? If so, where? > - Changelog already starts with a release number 2 ? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs Reverted to 1. It was two because I have a repo on copr and I've already made a second revision for this version. Here they are the new information: Spec URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren.spec SRPM URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren-0.0.16-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Seren is a simple VoIP program based on the Opus codec. With Seren you can create a voice conference from the terminal, with up to 10 participants: all you need to join an existing conference is the hostname or IP address of one of the participants. It creates a dynamic peer-to-peer network of equivalent nodes which exchange text and audio data using a UDP connection. You can also change the quality/bitrate on the fly, encrypt the traffic and record the calls. Thanks for your feedback!
> Commented. Should I write that is mine? If so, where? It's fine so. > Reverted to 1. It was two because I have a repo on copr and I've already made a > second revision for this version. Copr has nothing to do with a package review. If you want maintain continuity with the changes of your packages, you must list always all your modifications in the changelog starting from the release number 1 and go on. So > Mon Jan 06 2014 Francesco Frassinelli <fraph24> - 0.0.16-2 > -initial build is wrong. >> - Description has too long lines. > > I tried to fix it. It's not good. See this example http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS.spec - Remove the %clean section and list all documentation in a single line. %doc ... ... ...
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #3) > > Commented. Should I write that is mine? If so, where? > It's fine so. > > > Reverted to 1. It was two because I have a repo on copr and I've already made a > second revision for this version. > > Copr has nothing to do with a package review. If you want maintain > continuity with the changes of your packages, you must list always all your > modifications in the changelog starting from the release number 1 and go on. I know, I was just trying to explain my error. > So > > > Mon Jan 06 2014 Francesco Frassinelli <fraph24> - 0.0.16-2 > > -initial build > > is wrong. Oops, I forgot it. Fixed. > >> - Description has too long lines. > > > > I tried to fix it. > > It's not good. See this example > http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS.spec Ok, I got it. Fixed using fold -sw 72 description.txt > - Remove the %clean section and list all documentation in a single line. > > %doc ... ... ... Done. New information: Spec URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren.spec SRPM URL: http://frafra.fedorapeople.org/copr/seren/seren-0.0.16-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Seren is a simple VoIP program based on the Opus codec that allows you to create a voice conference from the terminal, with up to 10 participants, without having to register accounts, exchange emails, or add people to contact lists. All you need to join an existing conference is the host name or IP address of one of the participants. Seren creates a dynamic peer-to-peer network of equivalent nodes which exchange text and audio data using a udp connection, and offers the user the ability to change the quality/bitrate on the fly, encrypt the traffic and record the calls. Thanks for your patience. This is my very first package.
> Thanks for your patience. This is my very first package. Okay, this review is very simple but now you need a sponsor. Follow this guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Regards. ;)
I guess it may be time for me to take someone as part as my sponsorship duty. So let's review this package and let me sponsor you. I am starting Fedora review
So the package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/1048966-seren/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: seren-0.0.16-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm seren-0.0.16-1.fc20.src.rpm seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udp -> up, pud, ump seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrate -> nitrate, bit rate, bit-rate seren.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes seren.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udp -> up, pud, ump seren.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrate -> nitrate, bit rate, bit-rate 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint seren seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udp -> up, pud, ump seren.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrate -> nitrate, bit rate, bit-rate 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- seren (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.5()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libopus.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- seren: seren seren(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://holdenc.altervista.org/seren/downloads/seren-0.0.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b529b63167bb9ee2443142b285d01423330836a440133f0c2e15cb8422bc3b1a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b529b63167bb9ee2443142b285d01423330836a440133f0c2e15cb8422bc3b1a Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1048966 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: seren Short Description: Simple VoIP program to create conferences from the terminal Owners: frafra Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
fyi, fedora-review needs to stay at +, you wanted fedora-cvs ? (setting now)
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #9) > fyi, fedora-review needs to stay at +, you wanted fedora-cvs ? (setting now) Yes, exactly; thank you.
Francesco, please set fedora-cvs flag by yourself or Jon may not approve the request.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
seren-0.0.16-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seren-0.0.16-1.el6
seren-0.0.16-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seren-0.0.16-1.fc19
seren-0.0.16-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seren-0.0.16-1.fc20
seren-0.0.16-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
seren-0.0.16-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
seren-0.0.16-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
seren-0.0.17-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/seren-0.0.17-1.el6
seren-0.0.17-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: seren New Branches: epel7 Owners: bar frafra
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: seren New Branches: f21 Owners: frafra
> New Branches: f21 There is already a f21 branch, you just need to git pull http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/seren.git?h=f21