Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik-0.0.8-2.fc20.noarch.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Very lite but extendable mapping framework to create Mapnik ready maps with OpenStreetMap data (and more). For now, only Carto based projects are supported (with .mml or .yml config), but in the future we hope to plug in MapCSS too.
Updated package: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik-0.0.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
Taking. SRPM URL is incorrect. I am using: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik-0.0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm
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. [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [!]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Issues: * Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. * You may consider add appstream file (this one does not block review) * You should contact upstream to provide LICENSE file with full license text (this one does not block review) * You may consider writing up man page (this one does not block review) * I'm not sure how hard it would be to unbundle those fonts.
It's not actually a GUI application in the normal sense - when you run it a local web server is started which is then accessed from a web browser. I'll look into the font issue - we have all the fonts packaged, but only in OTF format (for the Fira ones) and TTF format (for the DejaVU ones) so there may be an issue. I know the whole question of web fonts was discussed on devel a while ago so I will try and find that.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts seems to be the answer.
> It's not actually a GUI application in the normal sense - when you run it a > local web server is started which is then accessed from a web browser. OK. Then only those fonts are blocking the review. License and man page remains as nice-to-have.
Updated package with fonts removed and non-js files moved to datadir: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21.src.rpm
OK all blocking items are done. License and man page remains, but you can do that any time later. Additionally it would be nice if you can (at least) add some documentation, which would describe how to install openstreetmap-cart on Fedora, eg.: dnf install gdal mapnik-utils git checkout ..../openstreetmap-carto.git cd openstreetmap-carto download shapes populate postgresql with gis kosmtik serve ./project.mml but that is just UX. APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: kosmtik Short Description: Make maps with OpenStreetMap and Mapnik Upstream URL: https://github.com/kosmtik/kosmtik Owners: tomh Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: jamielinux
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21,nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21,kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21,nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21,kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21
nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21, nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21, kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21, nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21, kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.