Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/skeleton/skeleton-css.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/skeleton/SRPMS/skeleton-css-1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: Skeleton is a beautiful CCS boilerplate for responsive, mobile-friendly development. It contains a small collection of CSS files that can help you rapidly develop sites that look beautiful at any size, be it a 17" laptop screen or an iPhone.
Hi Jamie, An informal review as I learn packaging guidelines. Notes are inline. Cheers, Sam Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. # Confirmed MIT licensed [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. # Builds OK https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6820609 (Noarch) [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. # Confirmed last commit is 7ab682091d1032035cfcb668e6bd4b465bfa4679 [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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). # This is expected because %build is empty [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: skeleton-css-1.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm skeleton-css-1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm skeleton-css.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint skeleton-css skeleton-css.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- skeleton-css (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem Provides -------- skeleton-css: skeleton-css skeleton-css(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dhg/Skeleton/archive/7ab682091d1032035cfcb668e6bd4b465bfa4679/skeleton-css-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acf67b3e0c0dae72d15a8fadaa76151e086f33bd6d71d49e953dbece96e1f921 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acf67b3e0c0dae72d15a8fadaa76151e086f33bd6d71d49e953dbece96e1f921 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1094042 Buildroot used: fedora-19-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
(In reply to Sam Wilson from comment #1) > Hi Jamie, Hi! > An informal review as I learn packaging guidelines. Notes are inline. Awesome. Welcome to the packaging world :) > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > # Confirmed MIT licensed > > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > # Builds OK https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6820609 > (Noarch) > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > # Confirmed last commit is 7ab682091d1032035cfcb668e6bd4b465bfa4679 Cool, I like that you checked the license (very important), did a scratch build and checked the latest commit. I see you skipped a lot of the checkboxes. Is that because you didn't assess them or because you didn't find any issue? Usually a reviewer would fill all of the checkboxes. (I'm not necessarily asking you to do more in this informal review, as you've already gone beyond the call of duty. I'm just trying to give advice.) Thanks for the informal review!
Also a note that for these kind of packages, there are now Web Asset guidelines in place (but are not yet part of the fedora-review tool): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets
Hi Jamie, I had left them blank without fully understanding the key. I've updated the review below; The only real issue I found was around the license being included in the SRPM and not the upstream source. But you've got the PR open so I am happy with that. Also thanks for pointing to the web guidelines. I was not aware of them. Cheers, Sam Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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: [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. # Confirmed PR is open at https://github.com/jamielinux/Skeleton/commit/1e0cc0d2ecd757ab5a7dacddb6496997c8487f6c [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. # Happy to accept this given the open PR (and lack of upstream activity and open PRs) [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: 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: skeleton-css-1.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm skeleton-css-1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm skeleton-css.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint skeleton-css skeleton-css.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- skeleton-css (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem Provides -------- skeleton-css: skeleton-css skeleton-css(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dhg/Skeleton/archive/7ab682091d1032035cfcb668e6bd4b465bfa4679/skeleton-css-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acf67b3e0c0dae72d15a8fadaa76151e086f33bd6d71d49e953dbece96e1f921 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acf67b3e0c0dae72d15a8fadaa76151e086f33bd6d71d49e953dbece96e1f921 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1094042 Buildroot used: fedora-19-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
(In reply to Sam Wilson from comment #4) > I had left them blank without fully understanding the key. I've updated the > review below; The only real issue I found was around the license being > included in the SRPM and not the upstream source. But you've got the PR open > so I am happy with that. > > Also thanks for pointing to the web guidelines. I was not aware of them. Thanks very much for the informal review, Sam! :)
The latest release seems to be 2.0.4.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.