Spec URL: https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec SRPM URL: https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: belen is a GUI of youtube-dl command for linux, this is made in Ruby/GTK+3. with this you can download multimedia content (audio,video,playlist) from many sites (ex youtube,vimeo,dailymotion). Now this is my first package to fedora community for the same reason i need a FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Fedora Account System Username: n0oir
Hi Carlos, We have this process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored in packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some (3-5) package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands packaging well and follows as per fedora packaging guidelines. Please go through links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines 3) To find package already submitted for review check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. If you got any questions please ask :)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1) > Hi Carlos, > We have this process > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > to get sponsored in packager group. Can you either submit few more packages > and/or some (3-5) package reviews? This is needed to make sure package > submitter understands packaging well and follows as per fedora packaging > guidelines. > > Please go through links > 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > > 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines > > 3) To find package already submitted for review check > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ > > 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > > 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help > review packages in fedora. > > If you got any questions please ask :) Thank for all help i follow all step correctly, now i check the item #5
You can pick any package from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html and provide your review for that package on that package review bug. When you done with such reviews, keep posting here those bugs links. This is needed so that sponsor will check if you are able to review those packages well, find any issues in them and provided solutions to correct them. You may also want to use http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks page to know what can be solution to some common issues you find in package reviews.
Fedora copr results http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/n0oir/belen/ Fedora Koji result http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7859033
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in belen See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: belen-0.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm belen-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm belen.noarch: W: no-documentation belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby belen.src: W: strange-permission belen.rb 0666L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint belen belen.noarch: W: no-documentation belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python ruby rubygem-gtk3 youtube-dl Provides -------- belen: application() application(belen.desktop) belen Source checksums ---------------- https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.rb : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.svg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -b 1151462 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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 note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ?
good to see that you used fedora-review first on your own package before reviewing other people's packages. As you can see you need some fixes in your package to follow packaging guidelines. But before that I see you are also upstream for what you have packaged. So, I got some suggestions. If upstream is good in generating good releases then it becomes easy for us to package it in fedora. 1) I see you already host your source on github. Its good to create tarball of your source files which will contain files belen.rb belen.svg README -> this will provide information about what this source is and how can one use it. LICENSE -> Always good to add a single license text for all your source files. belen.desktop -> desktop file Makefile -> This will install the above files on the system. This will make your spec more simple instead to add every source files and then desktop file contents in spec. 2) your desktop file should look like [Desktop Entry] Name=Belen Comment=Belen is a GUI of command youtube-dl for Linux Icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/belen.svg Type=Application Categories=Video;AudioVideo; Exec=/usr/bin/belen StartupNotify=true Terminal=false See http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html for valid categories. 3) when you want to install desktop file, follow guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage 4) As given by fedora-review Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but in this package spec both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are used. See more http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros 5) you should not install icon file in /usr/share/icons directory but in /usr/share/pixmaps 6)As per ruby packaging guidelines you should Requires: ruby(release) and remove Requires: for ruby and python both are not needed 7) It is now optional and should not be added following lines for fedora packaging Group:Applications/Multimedia rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(755, root, root) you can read about this in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines You can submit new spec and srpm fixing above issues for further review of this package. Note you should bump release tag and add changelog for what you changed in spec file since its last release.
Thank for all help friend :) well i follow your tips, now i have new spec and srpm new SPEC https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec new SRPM https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm ================================================================================ Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: belen-0.1-3.fc21.noarch.rpm belen-0.1-3.fc21.src.rpm belen.noarch: W: no-documentation belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby belen.src: W: strange-permission belen.rb 0666L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint belen belen.noarch: W: no-documentation belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(release) rubygem-gtk3 youtube-dl Provides -------- belen: application() application(belen.desktop) belen Source checksums ---------------- https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.rb : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.svg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -n belen Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
> note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ? "shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files. For some reason, it thinks your svg is a script file. Is it flagged as executable perhaps?
(In reply to Samuel Sieb from comment #8) > > note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ? shebang is a icon file ? > > "shebang" is the "#!" line at the start of most script files. For some > reason, it thinks your svg is a script file. Is it flagged as executable > perhaps? yes, it's strange but i fix this change the path of icon and using foo.png file :)
I see you still missed some of my points like using desktop-file-install and what Exec I wrote for desktop file. I will post few more issues in spec soon but meanwhile do some package reviews submitted by other people.
Hi Parag, i hope that you are fine , i have new files new SPEC https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec new SRPM https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/n0oir/review/review-belen/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: belen-0.1-4.fc21.noarch.rpm belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint belen belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruby(release) rubygem-gtk3 youtube-dl Provides -------- belen: application() application(belen.desktop) belen Source checksums ---------------- https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eed59a694926e94d6c5c37008bcf8fe49991275fdb5d5684b3627b9c741761c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eed59a694926e94d6c5c37008bcf8fe49991275fdb5d5684b3627b9c741761c8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -n belen Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
Hi Carlos: - using desktop-file-* you need have as buildrequires desktop-file-utils, remember if the file does not needs any modification the correct choice is desktop-file-validate, otherwise desktop-file-install - if you will validate your own spec running fedora-review, be sure to fill *all* the items. It is not necessary paste into the review, if is for your own package should be of personal use for evaluate your spec, if you are reviewing to other people, use is justified. (review to other people it is good idea to demonstrate to your sponsor that you have the enough knowledge to be packager) see this link to have an idea for review to other people http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Hello to all, i build new package new spec https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec new src.rpm https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-4.fc21.src.rpm regards
0.1-5 version new spec => https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec new srpm => https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-5.fc21.src.rpm
Its been more than 10 days now since my last comment. Hope you could have found time to review other people packages. Can you paste the links for those package reviews here? About your recent updated srpm. I have some suggestions 1) about look of spec file. It will be good to write every BuildRequires and Requires per line. E.g. BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils, ruby-devel should be BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: ruby-devel Same for Requires: line 2) It will be good for people reading your spec to read it clearly. So following Name:belen Version:0.1 Release:5%{?dist} Summary:GUI down-loader for Linux License:GPLv3 URL:https://github.com/n0oir/belen Source0:https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch:noarch can be written as Name: belen Version: 0.1 Release: 5%{?dist} Summary: GUI down-loader for Linux License: GPLv3 URL: https://github.com/n0oir/belen Source0: https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch 3) desktop-file-install line should be written as desktop-file-install \ --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ %{name}.desktop 4) At one place buildroot macro is written differently %buildroot should be %{buildroot} 5) Summary should be "Frontend of youtube-dl made in Ruby Gtk+3" 6) %description should be Belen is a GUI of command youtube-dl made in Ruby and GTK+3 with this you can download multimedia content and full playlist from * youtube * dailymotion * vimeo * etc... for the complete list visit http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/supportedsites.html
Thank Parag, don't worry by the time :) , now i follow all your suggestions and i fix the spec file 0.1-6 version spec : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.spec srpm : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen-0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm
Looks good now except a rpmlint on srpm gives warning message belen.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1) ==> The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. When you fix this, no need to increase the release number you can just use -6 again as its minor change.
Thank parag, i fixed the warning of indentation c: here are the files spec : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/Belen/belen.spec srpm : https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/Belen/belen-0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm
This might be a little early, but I built a package on F20 using the src.rpm and on two computers I tried it on, no interface came up. The process gets stuck.
(In reply to Samuel Sieb from comment #19) > This might be a little early, but I built a package on F20 using the src.rpm > and on two computers I tried it on, no interface came up. The process gets > stuck. well, this package is only for F21 or rawhide, because i'm using method of GtkSwitch that only are available since gnome 3.14 , if i change the GtkSwitch by GtkCheckBox , the app work fine in F19,F20,F21.
I see this user have many FAS accounts (at least .fas command to bugzilla account name showed many fas names) and not done work to get packager sponsorship. Removing myself.
Let's close this now.