Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/esh.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/esh-0.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: esh (embedded shell) is a templating engine for evaluating shell commands embedded in arbitrary templates. It’s like ERB (Embedded RuBy) for shell, intended to be used for templating configuration files. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
- Please package the latest version, version 0.1.1. - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build - make install prefix=%{_prefix} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install prefix=%{_prefix}
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/esh.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/esh-0.1.1-1.fc27.src.rpm * Sun Nov 19 2017 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> - 0.1.1-1 - Update to 0.1.1, use %%make macros
Package accepted.
Thank you for the swift review and accepting this. Your short comment however makes me feel a bit uncertain. Have you checked all the things described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines ?
I run fedora-review for all my reviews. Here the full review if you want it: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/esh/review-esh/licensecheck.txt [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 10240 bytes in 1 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: esh-0.1.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm esh-0.1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm esh.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting esh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting esh.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-1 ['0.1.1-1.fc28', '0.1.1-1'] esh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) templating -> contemplating, template, tempting esh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/esh. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
esh-0.1.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4b5d9ba50a
esh-0.1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-4b5d9ba50a
esh-0.1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.