Spec Name: banner.spec SRPM Name: banner-1.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: Classic-style banner program similar to the one found in Solaris or AIX. The banner program prints a short string to the console in very large letters. Also a good example of a very small autoconf-enabled program. Written in ANSI C.
Everything seems fine, except the License. Are you sure about 'GPL or Artistic'? I believe it's only Artistic.
Shit, wrong bug. Forget Comment #1.
Review: - rpmlint not clean - see NeedsWork below - naming of package and spec meets guidelines - package meets guidelines - license is GPL, text included in package - spec file written in English and is legible - source matches upstream - package builds ok in FC4 and in mock for devel (i386) - no locales, libraries, subpackages, pkgconfigs etc. to worry about - not relocatable - no directory ownership issues - no duplicate files - permissions are fine - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is consistent - code, not content - no large docs - docs don't affect runtime Needswork: - the Group: tag of "Toys" is not from the list in /usr/share/doc/rpm-*/GROUPS (this is the cause of the rpmlint not being clean). I suggest "Amusements/Graphics" or "Applications/Text" (probably the latter) instead. Comments: - I recall using a "banner" program on an old SunOS box, which printed text in *very* large letters indeed, such that they could be printed on roll or fold-feed paper and be visible from the other end of a large office. Those were the days... - I'd include ChangeLog as %doc - The last two sentences in %description about it being a good example of a very small autoconf-enabled program, written in ANSI C, are probably not of interest to prospective users of the package. Personally I'd drop them.
*** Bug 165690 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Build 2. See http://filelister.linux-kernel.at/mod_perl?current=/packages/FC_EXTRAS_APPROVAL/banner
Approved.
cvs imported. What is the correct bugzilla status now? NEXTRELEASE?
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess When your builds are done, close the bug NEXTRELEASE.
Normalize summary field for easy parsing
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: banner New Branches: EL-5 Owners: jima oliver
cvs done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: banner New Branches: EL-4 Owners: jima oliver Sorry. Forgot EL-4 :-(
I can't find any indication of an ack from the current package owner, but I guess this was already branched for EL-5 so an EL-4 branch probably isn't going to hurt anything. In the future, please follow EPEL policy when requesting EPEL branches of existing packages that you do not own. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL CVS done.
See comment in #537805 :-) The same is true for this...