Spec URL: https://magnus.morton.ai/packaging/vim-surround.spec SRPM URL: https://magnus.morton.ai/packaging/vim-surround-2.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Surround.vim is all about "surroundings": parentheses, brackets, quotes, XML tags, and more. The plugin provides mappings to easily delete, change and add such surroundings in pairs. This plugin is very powerful for HTML and XML editing, a niche which currently seems underfilled in Vim land. (As opposed to HTML/XML *inserting*, for which many plugins are available). Adding, changing, and removing pairs of tags simultaneously is a breeze. Fedora Account System Username: jaffachief Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76651532 This is my first package and I would need sponsored.
I don't have any pointers, but I am hopeful that you find a sponsor and get your package approved soon, because I would really like to have this packaged in Fedora! Unfortunately, I am also a new packager, so I can't sponsor you myself. -- Maxwell
Hello, I am a new packager, so this is a an unofficial review. > %install > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root} > cp -pr doc plugin %{buildroot}%{vimfiles_root} > > # Install AppData. > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{appdata_dir} > install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{appdata_dir} I believe this section should reference the macros where applicable. (ie %{__mkdir_p}, %{__cp}, %{__install}). This is a stylistic choice. > %files > %doc README.markdown > %{vimfiles_root}/doc/* > %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/* > %{appdata_dir}/vim-surround.metainfo.xml The contents of the tarball look like this: vim-surround-2.1 ├── doc │ └── surround.txt ├── plugin │ └── surround.vim └── README.markdown The %files section looks like it would assign ownership of all files under %{vimfiles_root}/doc/ and %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/ to this package. The spec should directly reference the names of these files. This will prevent file ownership conflicts. Try this: %{vimfiles_root}/doc/surround.txt %{vimfiles_root}/plugin/surround.vim --Robby
> I believe this section should reference the macros where applicable. (ie %{__mkdir_p}, %{__cp}, %{__install}). This is a stylistic choice. Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. mkdir, cp, and install are the right choice here. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros > The spec should directly reference the names of these files. Agreed. The Python guidelines state this explicitly, but it's also a good general guideline. I'm probably going to work on getting a generic form into the main guidelines. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_explicit_lists Here are a few additional things I noticed that should be fixed. The metainfo file should be installed into %{_metainfodir}. -%{appdata_dir}/vim-surround.metainfo.xml +%{_metainfodir}/vim-surround.metainfo.xml https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ It's not directly mentioned in the guidelines, but similar to the patch status guideline, there should be a comment for Source1 linking to where the metainfo file was submitted upstream. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ The %post and %postun scriptlets are no longer necessary on Fedora or EPEL8+ due to file triggers in the main vim package. If and only if you plan to add this package to EPEL7, you can keep them with a conditional so they only apply on EPEL7. I suggest following the example of the docfiletriggers conditional in the vim-fugitive spec file. If you remove them, make sure to also remove the corresponding Requires(post) and Requires(postun). https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim/c/d76e3c95ac644b1ab577bf4db79fb055f218724d https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vim-fugitive/blob/rawhide/f/vim-fugitive.spec Since the review was submitted, upstream has released version 2.2, so the spec file should be updated to that. https://github.com/tpope/vim-surround/releases/tag/v2.2
> I'm probably going to work on getting a generic form into the main guidelines. This is now in the main guidelines. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists Magnus, have you had a chance to incorporate the fixes suggested here to the spec file yet?
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.