Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01309939-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01309939-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n-4.0.0-1.20200317gitb4ac9e9.fc33.src.rpm Description: Translated man pages from the Linux Documentation Project Fedora Account System Username: nforro This package replaces existing man-pages-de, man-pages-fr and man-pages-pl packages and provides 3 more languages.
Updated summary and description. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01310875-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01310875-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n-4.0.0-1.20200318gite5c0d56.fc33.src.rpm Description: Translated man pages from the Linux Documentation Project and other software projects
Just for information: The latest version xz-5.2.5 (still not in Rawhide) contains man pages translated into German, which are also included in manpages-4.0.0. Such translations provided by upstream projects should always have priority over those from external projects like manpages-l10n. The next version of manpages-l10n won't contain the German xz man pages anymore. But if it happens that the Fedora package of manpages-l10n-4.0.0 arrives in Rawhide when xz-5.2.5 is already there, then make sure to remove the following files after %make_install: usr/share/man/de/man1/lzcat.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzcmp.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzdiff.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzegrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzfgrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzgrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzless.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzma.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzmadec.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/lzmore.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/unlzma.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/unxz.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xz.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzcat.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzcmp.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzdec.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzdiff.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzegrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzfgrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzgrep.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzless.1.gz usr/share/man/de/man1/xzmore.1.gz See also https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/65878
Thanks for the heads-up. There are no {lz*,unlz*} man pages, but I removed the rest. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01314890-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/man-pages-l10n/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01314890-man-pages-l10n/man-pages-l10n-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.src.rpm
(In reply to Nikola Forró from comment #3) > Thanks for the heads-up. There are no {lz*,unlz*} man pages, but I removed > the rest. > The file names starting with lz and unlz are symbolic links, make sure to remove them in case the script in your spec file generates them anyway. I can't track how it works, when I was a Fedora packager, I've used static file lists with macros only.
No, they are not in upstream/fedora-rawhide/links.txt, unlike e.g. archlinux.
LGTM, package approved. 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", "GNU General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "Common Development and Distribution License 1.0", "GPL (v2)", "ISC License", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.2 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "GNU Free Documentation License", "ICU License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "FSF All Permissive License", "Public domain", "NTP License", "*No copyright* NTP License", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.1 or later)", "Artistic License (v2.0)", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2.0)". 19779 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/man- pages-l10n/review-man-pages-l10n/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 245760 bytes in 18 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in man- pages-de , man-pages-fr , man-pages-nl , man-pages-pl , man-pages- pt_BR , man-pages-ro [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: man-pages-de-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-fr-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-nl-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-pl-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-pt_BR-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-ro-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.noarch.rpm man-pages-l10n-4.0.0-1.20200322gitbff338d.fc33.src.rpm man-pages-de.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-fr.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-fr.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/man/fr/man1/..1.gz man-pages-nl.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-pl.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-pl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/man/pl/man1/..1.gz man-pages-pt_BR.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Manual pages from the Linux Documentation Project, translated into Portuguese (Brazil). man-pages-pt_BR.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-ro.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-l10n.src: E: summary-too-long C Translated man pages from the Linux Documentation Project and other software projects man-pages-l10n.src: W: invalid-license Artistic Licence 2.0 man-pages-l10n.src:72: W: macro-in-comment %files 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.
Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/man-pages-l10n