Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne.git/tree/ne.spec?id=2b507b12e4a1a6d1b0cbd1012858d115462a285b SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00156282-ne/ne-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: ne is a free (GPL'd) text editor based on the POSIX standard that runs (we hope) on almost any UN*X machine. ne is easy to use for the beginner, but powerful and fully configurable for the wizard, and most sparing in its resource usage. If you have the resources and the patience to use emacs or the right mental twist to use vi then probably ne is not for you. However, being fast, small, powerful and simple to use, ne is ideal for email, editing through phone line (or slow GSM/GPRS) connections and so on. Moreover, the internal text representation is very compact--you can easily load and modify very large files. Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12712599 Fedora Account System Username: bthomas
- Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name? Name: ne-editor Version: 3.0.1 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Nice text editor - Source0 is a complete link to the archive - cd src; make NE_GLOBAL_DIR=/usr/share/ne; strip ne Use macros as much as possible and parallel 'make': make -C src NE_GLOBAL_DIR=%{_datadir}/ne %{?_smp_mflags}; strip ne http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros
* %optflags - Honor %optflags. Current compilation does not other them. Also changing optimization level from -O2 is discouraged, please fix this. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags * Debuginfo - Don't strip binary. This disables debuginfo rpm generation. (And as I said above, currently %optflags is not honored, including "-g". This is one of the reason why debuginfo file is not generated. Remove %global debug_package %{nil} and generate useful debuginfo rpm correctly) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name? Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue? `ne' is the name of the project and also the name of the binary. Nobody's going to try installing `ne-editor' first. I also maintain a few packages with two-letter names so I'm wondering why you think it's problematic in any way.
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name? > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue? It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not any rule that prevents this choice. Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name? > > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue? > > It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not > any rule that prevents this choice. > Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora. Well, that doesn't really answer my question why you think it's strange or bad. And just to name a few from the top of my head -- at, mc, nc, ii, jj, st, xz, bc, ... :)
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #5) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4) > > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3) > > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > > > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name? > > > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue? > > > > It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not > > any rule that prevents this choice. > > Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora. > > Well, that doesn't really answer my question why you think it's strange or > bad. > It's not strange neither bad, just not easily recognizable during a searching. Who does not know 'ne', can easily understand what it is already by '-editor' suffix. That is my thought of course. > And just to name a few from the top of my head -- at, mc, nc, ii, jj, st, > xz, bc, ... :) Indeed, there are there.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6) > It's not strange neither bad, just not easily recognizable during a > searching. Who does not know 'ne', can easily understand what it is already > by '-editor' suffix. > That is my thought of course. Aha, I see. Thanks.
For now I changed the name too "ne-editor" and made the other recommended changes. One thing that maybe should be considered is that other distributions (Arch, Ubuntu, Gentoo) call it "ne", but I'm not sure if that carries any weight. Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/ne.spec?id=aa715a3603b500fdefb5ade6f3021d23287132ac SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00158379-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
- You don't use macros yet: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/ne/syntax mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/ne/macros mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html becomes rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ne/syntax mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ne/macros mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html - mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html mv doc/html . you can do that with a simple %doc doc/html - /usr/share/ne/syntax/*.jsf /usr/share/ne/macros/* becomes %{_datadir}/ne/ to include all directories/files under /usr/share/ne - %doc ./COPYING Use %license for this file.
Thanks! Let me know how this looks. Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/ne.spec?id=ed3485452bd4f741fd1ed058944f849c0d960f11 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00159238-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Brandon Thomas from comment #10) > Thanks! Let me know how this looks. > > Spec URL: > http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/ > ne.spec?id=ed3485452bd4f741fd1ed058944f849c0d960f11 > SRPM URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide- > x86_64/00159238-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Changelog is not valid and not marked with %changelog macro. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
Stalled?
Submitter does not reply. Review stalled.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
Bummer, I might be biased but I'd love to see ne in Fedora :). Debian/Ubuntu/OpenBS/HomeBrew have a package since a long time.
(In reply to Sebastiano Vigna from comment #16) > Bummer, I might be biased but I'd love to see ne in Fedora :). > Debian/Ubuntu/OpenBS/HomeBrew have a package since a long time. As this review request is already closed, you can submit a new review request if you want to maintain this package on Fedora.