Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//hub.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//hub-1.12.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: hub is a command line tool that wraps `git` in order to extend it with extra features and commands that make working with GitHub easier. $ hub clone rtomayko/tilt $ git clone git://github.com/rtomayko/tilt.git
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6698063
Drop-by comments: Unversioned docdir change is in effect now. %{__install} --> install
New release addresses both of Christopher's comments: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/hub.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/hub-1.12.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
I'd propose you to change your Source0-URL to match https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github You'll end up with something similar to this Source0: https://github.com/github/hub/archive/v1.12.0/hub-1.12.0.tar.gz and can get rid of the weird %prep/%setup you are currently using in your spec.
Thanks Ralf. I updated the Source0 URL.. it is a little different than you suggested. I used the full commit hash like the guidelines recommend. I normalized the %prep/%setup stuff too. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/hub.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/hub-1.12.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4945920 bytes in 171 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - No %check, despites having a test directory, any reason why ? ( requires webmock/minitest ) - there is spurious file in man pages : /usr/share/man/man1/hub.1.html.gz /usr/share/man/man1/hub.1.ronn.gz - the doc is also installed twice ( once in /usr/share/doc , once in /usr/share/doc/hub/usr/share/gems/doc/hub-1_12_0/rdoc ), so I guess having a link or something could be a small improvement ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/1083344-hub/licensecheck.txt [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hub-1.12.0-3.fc20.noarch.rpm hub-1.12.0-3.fc20.src.rpm hub.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rtomayko -> automaker hub.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rtomayko -> automaker 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint hub hub.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rtomayko -> automaker 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- hub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/ruby ruby(release) ruby(rubygems) Provides -------- hub: hub Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/github/hub/archive/635646f7f39c7747f9cb06cf15c3c0c37520706b/hub-635646f7f39c7747f9cb06cf15c3c0c37520706b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 311982c93285b58fbc53842ca68a5a6d01054f00fcb15bf51f5c9e80448826dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 311982c93285b58fbc53842ca68a5a6d01054f00fcb15bf51f5c9e80448826dc Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1083344 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Here's an updated release that hopefully addresses your comments. I couldn't actually get the tests to run. The Gemfile declares a dependency on a version of rake that's in advance of what we have in rawhide. I left the bits in the specfile, but just commented out for the future. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/hub.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/hub-1.12.0-4.fc20.src.rpm
hub 1.12.1 was released and fix CVE-2014-0177 :) otherwise seems good, so approved.
Thanks misc :) I'll update on import. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: hub Short Description: A command-line wrapper for git with github shortcuts Upstream URL: http://hub.github.com/ Owners: ralph Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
hub-1.12.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hub-1.12.1-1.fc20
hub-1.12.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: hub New Branches: epel7 Owners: ralph