Hi! this is the second package I do, please review this in order to be sure I did it right or to know how can I improve it. Spec URL: http://rugebiker.fedorapeople.org/ffos-cli/ffos-cli.spec SRPM URL: http://rugebiker.fedorapeople.org/ffos-cli/ffos-cli-0.1-20140609git.1.fc20.src.rpm Description: ffos-cli is a simple program made in C to help programmers in creating Firefox OS applications easier. Fedora Account System Username: rugebiker Koji tests: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7034003 thanks a lot (:
Other than a couple of errors and warnings from rpmlint, and making sure you ask the upstream community to include a copy of the license with their source code, this is looking pretty good. Correct those minor issues, and I will approve 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [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]: 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. [-]: 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: ffos-cli-0.1-20140609git.1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ffos-cli-0.1-20140609git.1.fc21.src.rpm ffos-cli.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Simple program to help programmers create Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ffos-cli is a simple program made in C to help programmers in creating Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ffos-cli/README.md ffos-cli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffos ffos-cli.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Simple program to help programmers create Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.src: E: description-line-too-long C ffos-cli is a simple program made in C to help programmers in creating Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/aziflaj/ffos-cli/archive/%{commit}/ffos-cli-%{commit}.tar.gz HTTP Error 400: Bad Request 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ffos-cli ffos-cli.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Simple program to help programmers create Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C ffos-cli is a simple program made in C to help programmers in creating Firefox OS applications easier. ffos-cli.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ffos-cli/README.md ffos-cli.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffos 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ffos-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jansson libc.so.6()(64bit) libjansson.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ffos-cli: ffos-cli ffos-cli(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aziflaj/ffos-cli/archive/57441e3f8287e990a71f8c71e24533e7934711cf/ffos-cli-57441e3f8287e990a71f8c71e24533e7934711cf.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90e510d569dd45649d9c309d45392c28fb0f6405ea7229dead36164b4aa0a439 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90e510d569dd45649d9c309d45392c28fb0f6405ea7229dead36164b4aa0a439 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1107880 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines If there are issues, one typically does not put a '[x]' here. > Release: 20140609git.1%{?dist} This does not adhere to Fedora's versioning guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release Also apply the pre-release or post-release versioning guidelines in addition to the snapshot versioning guidelines. > Requires: jansson https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4005/7034005/build.log > + make -j16 prefix=/usr > gcc -std=c99 -o ffos main.c ffos.c -ljansson https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '20'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.