Spec URL: http://libreplanetbr.org/~sergio/rnetclient-fedora/rnetclient.spec SRPM URL: http://libreplanetbr.org/~sergio/rnetclient-fedora/rnetclient-2014.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Rnetclient is a Free Software that can be used to submit the Brazilian Income Tax Report to the Brazilian Tax Authority (Receita Federal). It is the outcome of reverse-engineering ReceitaNet, the official and proprietary software that Receita Federal develops. I am one of the maintainers of the software upstream. I am also a GNU developer, and upstream GDB maintainer, RHEL GDB maintainer, and Fedora GDB co-maintainer. However, this is the first package that I am sending for review, so I may have done something wrong (I apologize if that is the case). Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7928121 Fedora Account System Username: sergiodj
Ops, sorry for the confusion with FE_NEEDSPONSOR. I was blindly following the guides. I don't think I need a sponsor because I am part of the packager group already.
(In reply to Sergio Durigan Junior from comment #1) > Ops, sorry for the confusion with FE_NEEDSPONSOR. I was blindly following > the guides. I don't think I need a sponsor because I am part of the > packager group already. yes! I can review it.
Ping? :-)
Hey, After a long time, I finally had time to follow up on this bug. Omair Majid kindly reported to me that the RPM provided was using a different version than the official released source; this happened because I used my local tree to generate it, which had lots of commits that weren't present in the official release. Anyway, that is now fixed: I released a new version of rnetclient a few minutes ago, and regenerated everything from scratch. Hopefully, things are OK now. I am also taking the liberty to include Omair in the Cc list for this bug; maybe he should take ownership of it if he can... The new RPM is here: http://libreplanetbr.org/~sergio/rnetclient-fedora/rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm The spec file for it is: http://libreplanetbr.org/~sergio/rnetclient-fedora/rnetclient.spec I would *really* appreciate if this could be reviewed before the middle of March, because the Brazilian tax return season is about to begin... Thanks, again!
Hi, I've reviewed the latest packages, Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lberk/Downloads/rnetclient/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 5 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: [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- rnetclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.20()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28()(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_1_4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- rnetclient: rnetclient rnetclient(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://libreplanetbr.org/files/sw/rnetclient/rnetclient-2014.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf999ffbea74d74e1b2969584344cebb4eee421a5b394dcbe292803a819381e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cf999ffbea74d74e1b2969584344cebb4eee421a5b394dcbe292803a819381e9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --define DISTTAG=fc21 -rn ./rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rnetclient Short Description: Submit the Brazilian Income Tax Report to the Brazilian Tax Authority Upstream URL: http://wiki.libreplanetbr.org/rnetclient/ Owners: sergiodj Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC:
> %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT You may drop the "rm -rf ..." line here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Git done (by process-git-requests).
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc20
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc22
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
rnetclient-2014.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.