Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://infoserver.lv/~ol/files/algol68g.spec SRPM URL: https://infoserver.lv/~ol/files/algol68g-3.0.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Algol 68 Genie (Algol68G) is an Algol 68 compiler-interpreter. It can be used for executing Algol 68 programs or scripts. Algol 68 is a rather lean orthogonal general-purpose language that is a beautiful means for denoting algorithms. Algol 68 was designed as a general-purpose programming language by IFIP Working Group 2.1 (Algorithmic Languages and Calculi) that has continuing responsibility for Algol 60 and Algol 68. Fedora Account System Username: ol
> Source: http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz https:// %description could/should be wrapped to 80 columns, not 64. > %{_bindir}/* Please list the files in /bin explicitly. This way a reader who doesn't know the package knows what the binary is, and this will also catch silly mistakes like upstream adding a different binary or a suffix an existing one. > %{_mandir}/man1/* Same here, though less important. This usually would be something like %{_mandir}/man1/algol.1* to allow the default compression to be changed. > %license COPYING LICENSE > %doc AUTHORS COPYING LICENSE NEWS README ChangeLog It doesn't make sense to put COPYING and LICENSE in both. I'd drop them from %doc. > Release: 1%{?dist} > %changelog https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/index.html is recommended.
fedora-review says: - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol68g-3.0.2.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/
I've built a new version of the package with requested changes. Spec URL: https://infoserver.lv/~ol/files/algol68g.spec SRPM URL: https://infoserver.lv/~ol/files/algol68g-3.0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > Source: http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > https:// Done. > %description could/should be wrapped to 80 columns, not 64. Fitting in 64 columns is pure accidental. I was splitting lines to make each sentence start on a new line while still looking nice. > > %{_bindir}/* > Please list the files in /bin explicitly. This way a reader who doesn't know > the package > knows what the binary is, and this will also catch silly mistakes like > upstream adding a different > binary or a suffix an existing one. Done. > > %{_mandir}/man1/* > Same here, though less important. This usually would be something like > %{_mandir}/man1/algol.1* > to allow the default compression to be changed. Done. > > %license COPYING LICENSE > > %doc AUTHORS COPYING LICENSE NEWS README ChangeLog > It doesn't make sense to put COPYING and LICENSE in both. I'd drop them from > %doc. The problem is that these files are installed to docdir by "make install". I've excluded them explicitly. > > Release: 1%{?dist} > > %changelog > https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/index.html is recommended. May be, later. I use OBS to build and test my packages, and it doesn't support %autorelease yet (it generates Release value instead). And I can't use %autochangelog because my spec is not in Git repo yet. (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Added. > Note: Could not download Source0: > http://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol68g-3.0.2.tar.gz New version has been just released, and author doesn't keep older versions on his site.
Thanks, I'll try to review the latest version tomorrow, but I assume it can be approved. Have you done any reviews of others' packages? If not, could you do a review of one or two packages from https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html? (You can't approve the review before you are in the packager group, so for now please say that the review is informal.)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4) > Thanks, I'll try to review the latest version tomorrow, but I assume it can > be approved. The only difference besides version bump and requested changes is one more patch to fix libpq include that the author changed to something specific to his system in the latest version. > Have you done any reviews of others' packages? If not, could you do a review > of one or two packages from > https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html? > (You can't approve the review before you are in the packager group, so for > now please > say that the review is informal.) I was participating in package reviews before. Like this, for example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834731 I'll take a look at packages for review, and if I find something that's I'm interested in, I'll definitely participate as well.
+ package name is OK + latest version + license is acceptable for Fedora (GPLv3+) + builds and installs OK + fedora-review finds no issues + rpmlint: 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package is APPROVED.
I can sponsor you into the packager group, on the basis of this package and 2041267 and 1834731). Please sign the Fedora CLA first, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/#create_a_fedora_account.
Hmm, https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/ol/ shows that you have signed the CLA. But zodbot doesn't think so for some reason. I assume fas is right.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) > Hmm, https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/ol/ shows that you have signed > the CLA. But zodbot > doesn't think so for some reason. I assume fas is right. Oh course, FAS is right. :-) Thank you for reviewing my package and adding me to packager group!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/algol68g
FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3
FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e378ff53f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.