Spec URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data.spec SRPM URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data-0.28-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: distro-info-data contains the data necessary for the distro-info tool/library (submitted as a separate package review), which is a dependency of dput-ng (package review #1263821). It is distributed separately because it needs to be updated frequently. “Information about all releases of Debian and Ubuntu. The distro-info script will give you the codename for e.g. the latest stable release of your distribution. To get information about a specific distribution there are the debian-distro-info and the ubuntu-distro-info scripts. This package contains the data files.” Fedora Account System Username: suraia
Hi, As discussed per email, I will review this and sponsor you once dput-ng and all its dependencies have passed their pkg review. Regards, Hans
Full review done: Good: ==== - rpmlint checks return: distro-info-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning can safely be ignored - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (ISC) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Needs work: ======= - license text not in %files as %license, please add: %license debian/copyright to %files - Does not own all directories that it creates, in specfiles pkg-specific directories must be part of %files, so that they get removed when the pkg gets removed, to do this simply change: %{_datadir}/distro-info/* into: %{_datadir}/distro-info rpmbuild will then automatically make the pkg own the directory and include all files under the dir in the pkg, alternatively you could write: %dir %{_datadir}/distro-info %{_datadir}/distro-info/* This latter form is mostly useful if you do not want to include all files under the dir in a (sub)pkg If you can create a 0.28-2 srpm fixing these 2 issues, then we should be good to go wrt this pkg. Note as said please do a -2 and add a %changelog entry for the changes. During Fedora pkg-review we always bump the Release field and add a changelog entry when doing a new version, rather then keeping the release at 1 during the entire review process. So when you did the new dput-ng pkg which adds distro-data as dependency you should have made that dput-ng-1.10-2, no need to fix this now, but please always bump Release when doing new versions during pkg-review from now on. Regards, Hans
Thanks for your review! > - license text not in %files as %license, please add: > %license debian/copyright > to %files Done. > - Does not own all directories that it creates, in specfiles pkg-specific > directories must be part of %files, so that they get removed when the pkg > gets removed, to do this simply change: Done. I did it like this because distro-info already owns this directory. Is it a problem that both packages do so now? > If you can create a 0.28-2 srpm fixing these 2 issues, then we should be > good to go wrt this pkg. > > Note as said please do a -2 and add a %changelog entry for the changes. > During Fedora pkg-review we always bump the Release field and add a > changelog entry when doing a new version, rather then keeping the release at > 1 during the entire review process. So when you did the new dput-ng pkg > which adds distro-data as dependency you should have made that > dput-ng-1.10-2, no need to fix this now, but please always bump Release when > doing new versions during pkg-review from now on. Sorry about that. I was somehow under the impression that the Release should be kept at 1. :-) I have uploaded new versions here: Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data.spec SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data-0.28-2.fc23.src.rpm
Based on the comment at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278964#c5, I have fixed a small Python issue. Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data.spec SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data-0.28-3.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to Michael Kuhn from comment #4) > Based on the comment at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278964#c5, I have fixed a small > Python issue. > > Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data.spec > SRPM: > https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info-data/distro-info-data-0.28-3.fc23.src. > rpm Looks good to me now: Approved. I've added you to the packagers group and sponsored you, so now you can continue with the next steps: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner Regards, Hans
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/distro-info-data
dput-ng-1.10-3.fc23 distro-info-0.14-3.fc23 distro-info-data-0.28-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-327c80950a
distro-info-0.14-3.fc23, distro-info-data-0.28-3.fc23, dput-ng-1.10-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-327c80950a
distro-info-0.14-3.fc23, distro-info-data-0.28-3.fc23, dput-ng-1.10-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.