Spec URL: http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Src URL: http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo-1.2.tar.gz Description: Simple utility for viewing several types of HW Fedora Account System Username: p53 I am upstream developer package and i need sponsor as this is my first package koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?owner=p53&state=all
Hello, I was in the way to propose you to make an unofficial review of this package (as I'm a Fedora candidate packager - need a sponsor), but I can see in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058038 that Jeff Backus has already done it. Is it still necessary? If this is still necessary, I'll tell Jeff Backus that this review request replaced your previous one, in case he would like to go further with his unofficial review. Cordially, -- NVieville
The links are dead.
https://github.com/p53/systeminfo/releases/download/v1.2/systeminfo-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm https://github.com/p53/systeminfo/releases/download/v1.2/systeminfo.spec https://github.com/p53/systeminfo/archive/v1.2.tar.gz Here are live links
Please update to a supported Fedora version. Also update changelog and the version number. THere are many errors and issues. 1) If you are packaging python2 library or tools then your spec file should use %{__python2} macros only. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros 2) Its always a good practice to increase the release number when you provide updated package here. That will help what has changed since your last package update to new package update. 3) Note that python packaging guidelines have changed (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file). You should change %build and %install to %build %py2_build %install py2_install This should have the exact same effect, but is standard and more concise. 4) Please run fedora-review tool and go through the output: it will catch the same errors and issues for you and thus make review quicker than a back-and-forth.
Pavol, Can you update the package with above suggestions?
I don't see any update here which is waiting for Submitter to submit update. I am closing this review now. When needed to work this back in future, just re-open this review bug.