Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0.20140623git-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: RebaseHelper is tool helps you with rebasing your packages. Fedora Account System Username: phracek rpmlint outputs: ~/work/rebase-helper$ rpmlint rebase-helper.spec rebase-helper.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ~/work/rebase-helper$ rpmlint /home/phracek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rebase-helper-0.3.0.20140623git-1.fc20.src.rpm rebase-helper.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Rebase-Helper rebase-helper.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebasing -> rebating, debasing, re basing rebase-helper.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ~/work/rebase-helper$
Is it a part of the future automated system? ;)
- The description doesn't seem descriptive enough to me. What kind of "packages" are you talking about and what is "rebasing" meant to mean here? Are you talking about relocating binary rpms? - Though I am not a native English speaker, the spec file's %description doesn't seem to be correct English to me: "RebaseHelper is tool helps you with rebasing your packages."
Hi Christopher, Partially yes, At the begging when maintainer receive a BZ with new upstream version then rebase-helper will be executed and inform user what patches fails etc. If packages are build properly then rebase-helper informs what changes were done against the older version. Like API/ABI check.
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #2) > - The description doesn't seem descriptive enough to me. > What kind of "packages" are you talking about and what is "rebasing" meant > to mean here? Are you talking about relocating binary rpms? > > - Though I am not a native English speaker, the spec file's %description > doesn't seem to be correct English to me: > "RebaseHelper is tool helps you with rebasing your packages." Hi Ralf, thanks for info. Yeah, you are right. Spec file is corrected now
New version. Updated version to correct format. Spec URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140623git.src.rpm
The mock build fails with the following error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 8, in <module> from rebasehelper.version import VERSION File "/builddir/build/BUILD/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140623git/rebasehelper/__init__.py", line 8, in <module> from rebasehelper.application import Application File "/builddir/build/BUILD/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140623git/rebasehelper/application.py", line 8, in <module> from rebasehelper.archive import Archive File "/builddir/build/BUILD/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140623git/rebasehelper/archive.py", line 8, in <module> from backports import lzma ImportError: cannot import name lzma
Fixes dependency to pyliblzma. Updated description: Rebase-Helper is a tool to help package maintainers to update their packages to the latest upstream version. It helps you to rebase existing patches on top of the new sources. It also builds RPMs and performs various tests on them, comparing to the previous version. ~/work/rebase-helper$ rpmlint -v rebase-helper.spec rebase-helper.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} rebase-helper.spec: I: checking-url https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/archive/v0.3.0-0.1.20140623git.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ~/work/rebase-helper$ rpmlint -v /home/phracek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140623git.src.rpm rebase-helper.src: I: checking rebase-helper.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Rebase-Helper rebase-helper.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper (timeout 10 seconds) rebase-helper.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} rebase-helper.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/archive/v0.3.0-0.1.20140623git.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ~/work/rebase-helper$
> # install manpages for both short and long forms of the binaries What does this comment refer to?
The plan was to have a binary rebase-helper and short name rh with relevant pages. But for now I am deleting. The new spec file was uploaded.
rebase-helper.noarch: rebasehelper/__init__.py is non-executable script, but contains shebang. According to rpmlint this file should be executable or without shebang (marked as error).
New source tarball contains fix: New SRPM and SPEC file is: SRPM URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.2.20140623git.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec
- LICENSE file must be included in %doc - source files don't contain short version of license - macros as __python, etc. are deprecated - is better use __python2,... see [0] [0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
New SPEC file and SRPM package was uploaded. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140624git.src.rpm
New SPEC with corrected Summary. DistGit tag has been added too. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1.20140624git.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Petr Hracek from comment #14) > New SPEC with corrected Summary. > DistGit tag has been added too. > > SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec > SRPM Url: > http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.1. > 20140624git.fc20.src.rpm The release number is wrong. it should be 0.3.0-0.3.20140624git instead of 0.3.0-0.1.20140624git. Also the changelog entry is wrong for the same reason.
Yeah, good catch. SPEC Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper.spec SRPM Url: http://phracek.fedorapeople.org/rebase-helper/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20.src.rpm As release number as changelog entry were corrected.
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. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pstodulk/fedora- pkgs/1112246-rebase-helper/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: 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: rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc21.noarch.rpm rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc21.src.rpm rebase-helper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebase-helper rebase-helper.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rebase-helper rebase-helper.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebase-helper 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rebase-helper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 mock python(abi) rpm-build Provides -------- rebase-helper: rebase-helper Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/archive/v0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c79300bf9d650ca2bac300365544bdcf1dee2881d10a5130b33ebc83100dda3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c79300bf9d650ca2bac300365544bdcf1dee2881d10a5130b33ebc83100dda3 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1112246 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rebase-helper Short Description: Tool for package maintainers to help them with updating their package to the latest upstream version. Upstream URL: https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper Owners: phracek thozza jpopelka Branches: f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20
rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
rebase-helper-0.3.0-0.3.20140624git.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.