Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-weatherforecast.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: martinkg rpmlint: Checking: vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.1-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm vdr-weatherforecast.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io, ii vdr-weatherforecast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io, ii 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-weatherforecast.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: WeatherForecast provides a weather forecast based onforecast.io data. Sat Jan 17 2015 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.0.2-1 - Update to 0.0.2-1
Is there any particular reason why the package is not called vdr-plugin-weatherforecast? That would allow to use the %{name} macro in a more consistent way.
(In reply to Golo Fuchert from comment #2) > Is there any particular reason why the package is not called > vdr-plugin-weatherforecast? That would allow to use the %{name} macro in a > more consistent way. i don't know if it is a historically reason I do not know if it is a historical reason, but the Fedora package name contains no plugin. 'yum search vdr-' gives you a list of the vdr packages in Fedora.
You are right. I don't know if I like this but it seems to be the convention for Fedora indeed. I can take this review, I guess I can finish it this weekend.
Martin, the package is already in a very good shape. There is only one thing that has to be changed before including it in the repos: Surely you are aware of the latest changes to the Packaging Guidelines that the license files should not be included as %doc any longer, but as %license (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text). Please change that before pushing the package to the repos. Additionally, but that is only a matter of taste, I am not so happy with the frequent explicit mentioning of the package name in the spec file due to the mismatch of the package name and the source name. Maybe you want to consider introducing additional macro names. Here is the official review now: [+] No errors reported by rpmlint: rpmlint vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm vdr-weatherforecast.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm vdr-weatherforecast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [+] package name follows the naming guidelines. [+] spec file name matches the base package %{name}. [+] package meets the packaging guidelines. [+] package is licensced with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+) [+] Licencse field is correct. [!] the package contains a license file, but this is not included using %license [+] spec file is written in American English. [+] spec file is legible [+] Packaged sources agree with upstream sources. b7afd15376303c1ad7940d09cdf81b8a7642e145bf913e35609f9e5be1bb7f2c vdr-plugin-weatherforecast-0.0.2.tar.bz2-upstream b7afd15376303c1ad7940d09cdf81b8a7642e145bf913e35609f9e5be1bb7f2c vdr-plugin-weatherforecast-0.0.2.tar.bz2-packaged [+] successfully compiles and builds on at least one primary architecture (tested using mock) [+] no need for an ExcludeArch (ARM not tested) [+] all build dependencies listed in the BuildRequires [+] locales are handled properly using %find_lang [+] no need to run ldconfig (no shared libraries in the linker's default paths) [+] no copies of system libraries [+] package not relocatable [+] all installed file owend by the package (some directories are owned by the vdr package) [+] no file listed more than once in the %files section [+] file permissions are set properly [+] consistent use of macros (may be improved concerning the package name, though) [+] no need for a -doc subpackage [+] reasonable use of %doc [+] no need for a -static or -devel subpackage [+] package does not contain .la libtool files [+] no gui application [+] no files packaged already owned by other packages [+] all filenames valid UTF-8 #################### # Package Approved # ####################
(In reply to Golo Fuchert from comment #5) > Martin, the package is already in a very good shape. There is only one thing > that has to be changed before including it in the repos: > Surely you are aware of the latest changes to the Packaging Guidelines that > the license files should not be included as %doc any longer, but as %license > (see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Text). Please change that before pushing the > package to the repos. done > Additionally, but that is only a matter of taste, I am not so happy with the > frequent explicit mentioning of the package name in the spec file due to the > mismatch of the package name and the source name. Maybe you want to consider > introducing additional macro names. done @Golo Thanks for the review. Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5r0ymwnafz2xw6/vdr-weatherforecast.spec?dl=0 SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6i3b0w5q8byz1sw/vdr-weatherforecast-0.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm?dl=0 %changelog * Mon Feb 02 2015 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 0.0.2-2 - Mark license files as %%license where available - Defined global macro pname for program name
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: vdr-weatherforecast Short Description: A VDR plugin which provides a weather forecast Owners: martinkg Branches: f20 f21 rawhide InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). No need to request rawhide, it's automatic.
package has been built successfully on fc20, fc21 and rawhide.