Spec URL: https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/blob/master/f/mediawiki-backtick-code.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/blob/master/f/mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: The BacktickCode extension wraps <code> tags around wikitext which is placed `between backtick characters`. This provides a handy wiki-editing shortcut for wikis that expect a lot of inlined <code> snippets in its pages, and functions similarly to the standard MediaWiki ''' -> <b> bold formatting shortcut. Backtick characters within <pre> blocks will not be altered by this extension. Backticks outside of <pre> blocks can also be output to the page by escaping them as \`. Fedora Account System Username: aikidouke **Note** This is my first package and I will need a sponsor. I have packaged this for infra ticket #5136. Packagers from infra team have expressed willingness to sponsor (nirik, puiterwijk, etc) Link to koji build; https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27995053
Forgot rpmlint output; mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: file-size-mismatch mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2.tar.gz = 30720, https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/tree/master/mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2.tar.gz = 11311 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
- Not needed BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) rm -rf %{buildroot} - The archive seems corrupted. I don't manage to open it. Same with the SRPM. I think the correct Source0 should be: https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/raw/master/f/mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2.tar.gz - You should own this directory: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode %dir %{_datadir}/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and the Version-Release info: * Fri Jun 29 2018 Zach Villers <zachvatwork> - 0.0.2-1 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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mediawiki- backtick-code/review-mediawiki-backtick-code/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2-1.fc29.src.rpm mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog ebel ['0.0.2-1.fc29', '0.0.2-1'] mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: no-documentation mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Thanks for the review! I am working on these items. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - Not needed > > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > rm -rf %{buildroot} > > - The archive seems corrupted. I don't manage to open it. Same with the > SRPM. I think the correct Source0 should be: > > https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/raw/master/f/mediawiki- > backtick-code-0.0.2.tar.gz > > - You should own this directory: > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode > > %dir %{_datadir}/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode > > - The changelog entry must contain your name, email and the Version-Release > info: > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Buildroot: present but not needed > [?]: Package functions as described.
Hello - I have updated the spec file as suggested (I hope) and uploaded everything to the same pagure repo. The package builds as expected via koji scratch build and I have run rpmlint on the rpm produced; rpmlint mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.3-1.fc28.noarch.rpm mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog zachvatwork ['0.0.3-1.fc28', '0.0.3-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Do I need to open another bug for a re-review? Thanks, Zach
- The changelog entry must contain the Version-Release info: * Mon Jul 09 2018 Zach Villers zachvatwork - 0.0.3-1 - Don't use: %{__install} just use "install" directly. - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed. No need for a new bug, the review continues here.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > - The changelog entry must contain the Version-Release info: > > * Mon Jul 09 2018 Zach Villers zachvatwork - 0.0.3-1 > > - Don't use: > > %{__install} > > > just use "install" directly. > > - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed. > Thanks! I'm pretty confused about how to assure the package owns the directory without the %defattr macro. The spec files for mediawiki itself and other mediawiki extensions dont take the same approaches for ownership and installing files. I will keep digging though. I appreciate your speedy feedback.
%defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed because it is already the default, defattr is generally only used for exotic permissions (such as daemon needing to own a dir in /var/run for example)
Thanks again for your help. I have made the updates you suggested. The only warnings I get are about the spelling. koji build; https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28106911 rpmlint output; mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
What about this: - The changelog entry must contain the Version-Release info. You have still forgotten it.
I'm so sorry. I apologize for being so dense. I have added version-release info to the changelog for the latest change. Should I add it to all of the entries in the changelog or clean up some of those first entries that don't have my email and proper name? Here is the rpmlint output. The pagure repo has been updated; mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Also pat your email between brackets: * Tue Jul 10 2018 Zach Villers <zachvatwork> - 0.0.4-1 Package is approved. Now you still need to find a sponsor.
Thank you so much! Many many cookies for your patience. :)
I'll go ahead and sponsor you. :) If you have any questions please let me know, happy to help with the process...
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mediawiki-backtick-code
mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.4-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-56aa80cfd9
mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.4-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-56aa80cfd9