Spec URL: http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex.spec SRPM URL: http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex-0-7.gitad89dc2.fc20.src.rpm FAS Username: cbb Description: dex is a small and easy to use text editor. Colors and bindings can be fully customized to your liking. It has some features useful to programmers, like ctags support and it can parse compiler errors, but it does not aim to become an IDE.
I will review your package.
The package looks quite good at first sight. Just one note about the release tag: according to the guidelines, it should be: 0.7.git%{shortcommit}%{?dist} (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages). These same guidelines recommend adding the commit date to the prerelease tag too: 0.7.2014XXXXgit%{shortcommit}(see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release).
Thanks for the review. I've just amended the spec file to address the 2 issues you mention and also to address the recently changed guidelines for GitHub sources. I've also truncated the old changelog to avoid any confusion between the 2 versioning schemes. The new spec and SRPM can be found at: http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex.spec http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex-0-0.1.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20.src.rpm There's also a diff of the changes to the spec file, in case it's useful: http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex-spec-first-second.diff I have noticed the "incorrect-fsf-address" error given by rpmlint for /usr/share/doc/dex/COPYING, which I will report to upstream soon.
You can replace in %files these two lines: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ %{_datadir}/%{name}/* simply by %{_datadir}/%{name}/ The %{_datadir}/%{name} directory *and* all its contents will be owned by the package, in the same way than with your two lines ;).
(In reply to Mohamed El Morabity from comment #4) By the way, the build isn't verbous enough to check the compilation flags. You can add "V=1" to the make command to fix it: make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
Fixed both of those issues. Thanks for pointing them out :) New files: http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex.spec http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20.src.rpm http://cbb.fedorapeople.org/packages/dex-spec-second-third.diff
here is at last the review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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. -> No license comment found in source code, relying on COPYING file instead [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. ->See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6724327 [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. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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. ->See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6724327 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. ->Tested in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6724327 [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. [-]: 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). [-]: 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: dex-0-0.1.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20.x86_64.rpm dex-0-0.1.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20.src.rpm dex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags dex.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/dex/COPYING dex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. -> The spelling issues can be ignored. The incorrect-fsf-address is an upstream issue, will be reported upstream (see comment #3) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dex dex.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags dex.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/dex/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dex: dex dex(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tihirvon/dex/archive/ad89dc2611d9b631aa7f905e9266f290c8a21c8f/dex-ad89dc2611d9b631aa7f905e9266f290c8a21c8f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef83ae0adb94e994144fabebe60b793d6cd82a8ad2d9a9ad1bd3cd844bb1fbbc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef83ae0adb94e994144fabebe60b793d6cd82a8ad2d9a9ad1bd3cd844bb1fbbc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1084776 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 This package is APPROVED! Good packaging work ;)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dex Short Description: Dextrous text editor Owners: cbb Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Many thanks for the quick and pleasant review :)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20
dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc19
dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dex New Branches: epel7 Owners: cbb Apologies for splitting this into 2 request. I should have included epel7 in the first.
dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
dex-0-0.2.20140410gitad89dc2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.