Spec URL: http://www.mudmagic.com/mud-client/downloads/mudmagic.spec SRPM URL: http://www.mudmagic.com/mud-client/downloads/mudmagic-1.9-fdr.src.rpm Description: Gtk program for connecting to online text games ( Muds ). This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor.
Have you submitted a package before? If not, you'll need to get a sponsor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored gives you the details. You will need to add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the FE-blocks below. The spec isn't bad, but you need to replace Release: fdr with Release: 1%{?dist} %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/mudmagic.pc has to be in it's own package (so you'll need a -devel subpackage)
rpmlint output srpm W: mudmagic strange-permission mudmagic.spec 0600 W: mudmagic mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (ignorable) rpm W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8 1.9-fdr (see #1 dist flag) W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libmudmagic.so W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mudmagic.pc built cleanly in mock (i386). Fix the above problems (and the ones in #1), let me know if you have a sponsor and I'll do the full review on this package.
Thank you Paul for the comments. I do not have a sponsor. > Release: fdr > with > Release: 1%{?dist} I performed this update, which changes the file download location mentioned in the initial bugzilla entry. The new file location is: SRPM URL: http://www.mudmagic.com/mud-client/downloads/mudmagic-1.9-1.src.rpm > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/mudmagic.pc excluded > mudmagic mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (ignorable) fixed > incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8 1.9-fdr (see #1 dist flag) fixed > W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libmudmagic.so > W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/mudmagic.pc excluded > W: mudmagic strange-permission mudmagic.spec 0600 This error with permission was created because I created the rpm files from tar-ball. I performed the additional steps by building directly off the spec file in /usr/src/redhat/SPECS, and it fixed this error [ no updates were needed to remove this error ] Thank you, Calvin
Don't exclude the .so or .pc file, just create a -devel package (below goes into the spec file - package and description after the description of the main package, files after the normal files bit) %package devel Summary : Development files for MudMagic Group: Development/Libraries Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} pkgconfig %description devel Development files for MudMagic .... %files devel %{_libdir}/libmudmagic.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/mudmagic.pc On the subject of sponsorship, you need to submit a couple more packages than this so that sponsors are happy that they know you're au fait with the packaging guidelines.
Forgot to say, changing the mode on the specfile chmod 644 rpmbuild/SPECS/mudmagic.spec :-)
> Don't exclude the .so or .pc file, just create a -devel package Thank you, I went off your example and some other OpenSource spec.in files. The src.rpm and mudmagic.spec rpm have been updated, and changes committed to CVS. > On the subject of sponsorship, you need to submit a couple more packages than > this so that sponsors are happy that they know you're au fait with the packaging > guidelines. Ah. Thank you. I was wondering why it was taking 2+ years to get this software project in Fedora. It is currently supported by Debian, and a few other non-popular Linux distro's. Each of those distro's had their own sponsor working to get this program submitted though. This is the only software program I have any time to work on. I don't have any plans in developing additional software or package releases than what this software requires (but if that's the _only_ way to add it to FC, I just might eventually do that! ) I will look for a submitter to handle the FC distribution ( anyone available?! =)
The bug needs to be reassigned and someone else takes it on. If you send an email to the fedora-extras mailing list, point them at this bug number and say that most of the hard work has been done, I'm pretty sure someone will take it up. If someone does take it up, reassign the bug to them.
Why is this closed but still blocking both FE-REVIEW and FE-NEEDSPONSOR? It looks like this should block FE-DEADREVIEW instead; I'll make the change.