Spec URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info.spec SRPM URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info-0.14-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: distro-info contains tools as well as modules for Perl and Python. It provides additional functionality for dput-ng (package review #1263821). “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.” Fedora Account System Username: suraia
IMO should be debian-distro-info... Current name is too common.
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
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > IMO should be debian-distro-info... Current name is too common. distro-info matches what upstream is using and IMHO the chance for collisions is not that high, so lets just keep it as is. Full review done: Good: ==== - rpmlint checks return: [hans@shalem ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/distro-info-* rpmbuild/SRPMS/distro-info-0.14-1.fc23.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - 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 - owns all directories that it creates - 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: ======== - Please add a comment (# foo) above: "%make_install VENDOR=ubuntu" why you use VENDOR=ubuntu here - license text not in %files as %license, please add: %license debian/copyright to %files for all (sub)packages. Note normally you would only add a %license line to %files for the main pkg, but since the different sub-pkgs do not interdepend here (and there is no main pkg), you need to add it to all sub-pkgs. - Does not own all directories that it creates: Does not own the %{perl_vendorlib}/Debian dir If you can create a -2 srpm fixing these 3 issues, then we should be good to go wrt this pkg.
> - Please add a comment (# foo) above: "%make_install VENDOR=ubuntu" why you > use VENDOR=ubuntu > here I have solved this differently now. This was needed because the Makefile installs a symlink to $VENDOR-distro-info and there is no fedora-distro-info. I have now disabled the installation of this symlink. > - license text not in %files as %license, please add: > %license debian/copyright > to %files for all (sub)packages. Note normally you would only add a %license > line to %files for the main pkg, but since the different sub-pkgs do not > interdepend here (and there is no main pkg), you need to add it to all > sub-pkgs. Done. > - Does not own all directories that it creates: Does not own the > %{perl_vendorlib}/Debian dir Done. > If you can create a -2 srpm fixing these 3 issues, then we should be good to > go wrt this pkg. Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info.spec SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info-0.14-2.fc23.src.rpm
Michael, I see an issue you should fix. You're using unversioned python names and macros assuming that they'll remain Python 2. We aren't supposed to assume that anymore, as we move toward Python 3. Accordingly, please use %{python2_sitelib}, prefix your python- packages as python2- ones, and use python2 packages instead of python packages for Python 2 dependencies. More details on the Python packaging guidelines here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> You're using unversioned python names and macros assuming that they'll > remain Python 2. We aren't supposed to assume that anymore, as we move > toward Python 3. Accordingly, please use %{python2_sitelib}, prefix your > python- packages as python2- ones, and use python2 packages instead of > python packages for Python 2 dependencies. > > More details on the Python packaging guidelines here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Thanks for your comment! I have updated the packages based on the new guidelines. Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info.spec SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info-0.14-3.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to Michael Kuhn from comment #6) > Thanks for your comment! I have updated the packages based on the new > guidelines. > > Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info.spec > SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/distro-info/distro-info-0.14-3.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
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.