Spec URL: https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf.spec SRPM URL: https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf-12-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: pydf displays the amount of used and available space on your file systems, just like df, but in colors. The output format is completely customizable. Fedora Account System Username: devhen This is my first package and I need a sponsor. pydf is in Fedora (for <= f24) and in EPEL (for el5 & el6) but is very outdated. The latest is version 12 and Fedora/EPEL have version 9. I submitted a bug report asking for the package to be upgraded to which the current maintainer replied that he doesn't have the time. So I would like to take over maintenance duties for the this package. I've created updated packages for f24, f25, f26, el6, and el7. https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f24/pydf-12-1.fc24.src.rpm https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf-12-1.fc25.src.rpm https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f26/pydf-12-1.fc26.src.rpm https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/el6/pydf-12-1.el6.src.rpm https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/el7/pydf-12-1.el7.src.rpm I have made as little changes to the original rpms as possible. pydf version 12 supports python 3 so I've changed the spec to require python 3 instead of python 2. I've also added a sed command to %prep that changes the shebang in the pydf executable from /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3. Other than that, and version number & changelog changes, everything else in the rpms & spec files has stayed the same aside from the new pydf version 12 source code (upstream: http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/software/pydf/pydf_12.tar.gz). I have tested these on f24, f25, el6, and el7 and they work well. I have also run koji scratch builds and they have all finished successfully. Successful f24 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776736 Successful f25 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776559 Successful f26 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776763 Successful el6 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776894 Successful el7 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776834 Please let me know if there is someone who would be willing to sponsor me and help me with my first package submission. I hope to be able to contribute this package as well as more packages in the future! Thanks, FAS User: devhen Devin Henderson devin
I forgot to link to the original bug report where the current maintainer stated that he doesn't have time to upgrade the package --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338050
Disclaimer: This is an unofficial review. The SPEC file that you are using is fairly old. The last update performed by the package maintainer was in 2011. There have been a host of changes in the packaging guidelines since then. I would recommend following the current guidelines to write the SPEC file. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Guidelines * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
> I have made as little changes to the original rpms as possible. Why that? What changes would you have liked to make? > Summary: Fully colorized df clone written in python s/python/Python/ > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections > install -p pydf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} > install -p pydfrc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir} > install -p pydf.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1 These commands are the obvious place where to use the -m argument to set the mode of the files. > gzip -9nf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1 README rpm-builds compresses manual pages on-the-fly, choosing whatever compression technique is configured on the build machine. Don't compress the file manually. And compressing the 1992 bytes small README into a renamed file README.gz serves no purpose. It doesn't even save a KiB. > %clean > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections > %defattr(644,root,root,755) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > %doc README.gz INSTALL COPYING https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/pydf If installed correctly during %install (either via an upstream Makefile or manually with the "install" command), it would not be necessary to fiddle with %attr here. Sure, using %attr works, but imagine you need to maintain a larger package with many more files. Overusing %attr reduces readability a lot. You want to reduce the usage to really special permission/owner change scenarios. > %{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1.gz As above. The following would be able to handle uncompressed man pages as well as system-wide rpmbuild configuration changes: %{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1*
Thank you Dhanesh and Michael! I will read through your notes and links and see if I can come up with a better spec file.
what about: srpm: https://github.com/gtema/pydf/raw/master/pydf-12-1.fc25.src.rpm spec: https://github.com/gtema/pydf/raw/master/pydf.spec spec is created brand new taking into account all found packaging recommendations. Can anyone, please, review the spec?
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.