SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/uread-0.19981218-1.src.rpm Description: These utilities enable you to have a look at a Fortran unformatted file to see the size of the data records, and to swap its endianess from big to little, or vis versa.
Good: + rpmlint doesn't complaint the source rpm. Bad: - Source0 should conatins a full-qualified URL. Question: Will this software continue supported by the developers? On the top of the SPEC file I found a time stamp from the year 1998. This are 8 years ago now, so I have to asume, that there will be no active development of this software. Want point, which inprove my asumetion is, I have not found a full-qualified URL to the sources, so I think that this may be a cvs snapshot. So I mus asume, that there will be no active development of this software. If I will be right, I must block an inclusion of this software as a reviewer of Fedora Extras. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt
It is not a cvs snapshot, it is just a stable software. If you look at the comments at the top of the spec file you'll see where the real source come from. since it is unversionned, I use the timestamp to have a versionned file. You can have a look at tetex-tex4ht for another example. #Source0: http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~snor007/src/uread.tar.gz There is no active development, but is is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing, it means that it is a stable software. Hopefully there will be no more development for that software. The upstream is still responsive, however as I was able to have a licence clarifiction in 2 days. That's a pretty responsive upstream...
OK. Then please post a fixed SRPM, so I can continue the review process.
Urm. Fixed how? What do you propose for the source tarball name, the release and the version?
For the Source tag, you should have a full qualified URL points to the download location of the source file.
The source tag corresponds with the tarball name. In that case the tarball on the web don't have a version associated. So to have a tarball with a version, one cannot have the real url in the source tag. In my opinion it is better to have a tarball with a version (a timestamp here) than to have the real url, given that the url is in comment near the Source tag, with an instruction to use wget to retrieve the source.
I disagree with comment #6, I expect a full-qualified URL in the source tag.
There will source tarball with different content and the same name. Do you really want that? I guess the buildsystem is able to handle such a case, but it is very unconvenient. Maybe it is time to throw the issue in fedora-extras-list?
So, is anything happening here? It's been over ten months since the last comment.
I should contact upstream and ask for a versionned tarball, but I have other priorities. I think it could be left open.
I have ask on fedora-maintainers how to handle this situation. Please rename the tarbar into anything like uread-<Timestamp>.tar.gz and use the Timestamp as the version of the package.
(In reply to comment #11) > I have ask on fedora-maintainers how to handle this situation. Please rename the > tarbar into anything like uread-<Timestamp>.tar.gz and use the Timestamp as the > version of the package. As the version, are you sure? Shouldn't the version be 0 instead? And release something along 0.%{stamp}?
Sorry, you are right.
I changed the version and release accordingly: - use 0 as version and put the timestamp in the release http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/uread.spec http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/uread-0-0.19981218.fc8.src.rpm
Good: + Package meets the naming guideline + Package versioning schema idicates, that a unversion source was used + Package source was renamed to contains a timestamp, becaused it was unversioned + License of the package is GPL + Package contains a mail from upstream with explicit GPL permission + License field metches with mail. + Spec is written in english. + RPM macros are used consistently + Tar ball matches with upsream (md5sum: 656a18c6e731f5ff405d69279c897b1f) + Package has correct buildroot + Package has no BuildRequires + Package has no Requires + Package has no subpackages + Package use optflags + Package use %{_smp_mflags} + Local build works + Package contains proper %defattr + Package has a %clean section and buildroot will clean at the start of %install + Package filelist has no duplicates + Package contains no files own by an other package + Application does not crash on startup + Changelog section look ok. + Rpmlint is quite on source and binary rpm. + Debuginfo package contains source files * Mock build works fine for Devel and F-7 (x86_64) Bad: - Package doesn't contains a file with the verbatim license text *** APPROVED ***
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: uread Short Description: Utilities for unformatted fortran files Owners: pertusus[ AT ]free.fr Branches: EPEL-4 EPEL-5 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Thanks for the review, Jochen.