Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl-0.76-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: MinGW small embeddable Tcl interpreter Fedora Account System Username: sailer
copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/507245/
I'm trying to gain some reputation to get my own package sponsored, so I will give it a go ahead to review yours. If you want you could give my much simpler package a review in return [1], if you don't see any improvements, then please leave a comment that you approve the package. According to the Fedora package documentation, the BuildRoot should be left untouched [2]. Another remark, the use of %defattr is no longer necessary unless the permissions need to be altered [3]. The group tag is deprecated [2]. Please also note that %clean section is redundant [2], unless you also build for EPEL. If not then the %clean section with the 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' could be left out. The 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in the %install could probably also be left out? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411984 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_basics
Also make sure you preserve the time stamps in the %install section with install commands (-p switch). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
(In reply to Kees de Jong from comment #3) Thank you for your review. I have updated the package accordingly: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl-0.76-2.fc25.src.rpm https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl.spec http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sailer/mingw/mingw-jimtcl.git/diff/?h=f25 Do you know whether Michael Schwendt is continuing reviewing your package?
(In reply to Thomas Sailer from comment #4) > (In reply to Kees de Jong from comment #3) > > Thank you for your review. I have updated the package accordingly: > > https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl-0.76-2.fc25.src.rpm > https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl.spec > > http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sailer/mingw/mingw-jimtcl.git/ > diff/?h=f25 > > Do you know whether Michael Schwendt is continuing reviewing your package? I haven't heard from him in a while, I guess he's not planning to. I will email him directly about this, if he's not willing, will you be able to continue the review?
Hello, - Please update to the latest version, 0.77. Note that the doc directory moved to docs, so fix your SPEC accordingly. - Please use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both at the same time: - Remove the unused stuff in comments. If you wish to keep some comments, please note that you must double the % character for it not to be parsed as a variable: %% Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "NTP", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause) NTP". 207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-jimtcl/review-mingw- jimtcl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 839680 bytes in 20 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-jimtcl , mingw64-jimtcl [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Hi Robert-André, thanks for the review! I have fixed the rpmlint errors and updated to 0.79: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl-0.79-1.fc33.src.rpm https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-jimtcl.spec copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1544025/
Hi Thomas A few notes: - Group: is not used in Fedora - Please add comments above each patch to explain why they are needed Package is approved otherwise.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/1544791/ Removed Group. Added comments about what each patch does.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-jimtcl
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46951805