Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/praiskup/vim-rhubarb-rpm/master/vim-rhubarb.spec SRPM URL: http://praiskup.fedorapeople.org/vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.src.rpm Description: GitHub support for vim-fugitive plugin. Enables :Gbrowse from fugitive.vim to open GitHub URLs. Sets up :Git to use hub if installed rather than git (when available). In commit messages, GitHub issues, issue URLs, and collaborators can be omni-completed (<C-X><C-O>, see :help compl-omni). Fedora Account System Username: praiskup
When I install the package, I would expect help to be available. Please try :help rhubarb.txt I think you will need to explicitly copy the doc file into vimfiles_root and then call helptags. For inspiration, I would look into vim-fugitive.spec. They do it this way: %install install -D -p -m 0644 doc/fugitive.txt %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root}/doc/fugitive.txt %postun > %{vimfiles_root}/doc/tags vim -c ":helptags %{vimfiles_root}/doc" -c :q &> /dev/null %endif Otherwise, the package looks good to me.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1816627-vim-rhubarb/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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.fc33.noarch.rpm vim-rhubarb-0-1.git513059.fc33.src.rpm vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus vim-rhubarb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply vim-rhubarb.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.utf8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.utf8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gbrowse -> Browse, G browse, Drowse vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US omni -> omnibus vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compl -> comp, compel, comply vim-rhubarb.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/tpope/vim-rhubarb <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tpope/vim-rhubarb/archive/5130596a65330a4e8523d3ac1582f6c31ea6bc63/vim-rhubarb-5130596a65330a4e8523d3ac1582f6c31ea6bc63.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5af9da05e3a65c530523edf7d10f090bad265fed4fe98c8892212e5a8f7919a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5af9da05e3a65c530523edf7d10f090bad265fed4fe98c8892212e5a8f7919a Requires -------- vim-rhubarb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vim-common vim-fugitive Provides -------- vim-rhubarb: vim-rhubarb Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1816627 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Python, R, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
One more thing. I believe the release version is not optimal. Please see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Currently, the release is 1.git513059.fc30 but the documentation suggests this instead YYYYMMDD.<revision> YYYYMMDD<scm><revision>
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/praiskup/vim-rhubarb-rpm/master/vim-rhubarb.spec SRPM URL: http://praiskup.fedorapeople.org/vim-rhubarb-0-2.20191014git513059.src.rpm > I think you will need to explicitly copy the doc file into vimfiles_root and Good idea, done. > then call helptags. Vim has file triggers, and calls it itself. I don't plan to maintain this in el7. > I believe the release version is not optimal Thanks, I was outdated and I didn't know this rule! Fixed.
> Vim has file triggers, and calls it itself. True, it works even without the %postun
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-rhubarb
AFAIK I am supposed to close this now.
FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5063da2009
FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-1e92ad0939 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-5063da2009 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.