Fedora Merge Review: hwbrowser http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/hwbrowser/ Initial Owner: nphilipp
You may like to use following patch to SPEC. --- hwbrowser.spec 2006-11-24 19:49:55.000000000 +0530 +++ hwbrowser-modified.spec 2007-02-26 15:29:41.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -Summary: A hardware browser. +Summary: A hardware browser Name: hwbrowser Version: 0.30 Release: 1%{?dist} @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} --includedir=%{_includedir} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} --bindir=%{_bindir} +for source in *.py; do + sed -i -e '/^#!\/usr/d' $source +done + %build make @@ -55,15 +59,15 @@ %defattr(-,root,root) %doc README AUTHORS COPYING %{_bindir}/hwbrowser -%{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/* -%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/* +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/* +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/* %{_datadir}/hwbrowser %{_datadir}/kontrol-panel/icons/hwbrowser.png %{_datadir}/pixmaps/hwbrowser.png %{_datadir}/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop %changelog -* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.30 +* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.30-1 - pick up updated translations (#216597)
Any updates?
(In reply to comment #1) > -Summary: A hardware browser. > +Summary: A hardware browser I've removed the article as well ("Hardware browser"). > +for source in *.py; do > + sed -i -e '/^#!\/usr/d' $source > +done I've removed the hash-bang in the files that are only modules (DeviceList.py is callable). > +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/* > +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/* OK > %{_datadir}/hwbrowser > %{_datadir}/kontrol-panel/icons/hwbrowser.png I've removed that (we don't ship a kontrol-panel desktop file anyway). > %changelog > -* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.30 > +* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.30-1 No, I need this to discriminate between stuff directly built from the "upstream" spec file and stuff with additional patches (e.g. in RHEL). hwbrowser-0.31 is building right now with these changes.
ping?
pong. sure let me check what mock gives me
build.log showed me + desktop-file-install --vendor redhat --delete-original --dir /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/hwbrowser.desktop /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop: warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false" or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards compatibility /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop: warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the desktop entry specification. Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", "Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", "Settings", "System", "Utility" instead ALSO rpmlint reported on SRPM W: hwbrowser macro-in-%changelog _datadir Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. And on RPM W: hwbrowser incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.31 0.31-1.fc7 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. E: hwbrowser non-executable-script /usr/share/hwbrowser/DeviceList.py 0644 This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. Kindly correct those things and update the package.
(In reply to comment #6) > build.log showed me > + desktop-file-install --vendor redhat --delete-original --dir > /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications > /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/hwbrowser.desktop > /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop: > warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false" > or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards > compatibility fixed > /var/tmp/hwbrowser-0.31-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop: > warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the desktop entry > specification. Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", "Development", > "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", "Settings", "System", > "Utility" instead fixed > > ALSO > rpmlint reported on SRPM > W: hwbrowser macro-in-%changelog _datadir > Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead > to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that > affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in > possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally > odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros > in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. > fixed > And on RPM > W: hwbrowser incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.31 0.31-1.fc7 > The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not > coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. this will stay, as we're upstream for hwbrowser, thus releases will almost always be "1{?dist}" > > E: hwbrowser non-executable-script /usr/share/hwbrowser/DeviceList.py 0644 > This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for > executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If > the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, > otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. fixed > > Kindly correct those things and update the package. hwbrowser-0.32 is building right now.
WRT to changelog entry: just use 0.31-1 (or 0.32-1, etc) and you'll make rpmlint happy. Even if you are upstream, maybe you'll decide that a minor change is not worth a version bump but just a release bump.
If you insist... I've added the release tag to the changelog entry in upstream CVS as a reminder, i.e. when there's a new version, rpmlint will be happy then (hopefully I won't forget it ;-).
Ok now rpmlint gave me W: hwbrowser incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.32 0.32-1.fc7 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
You just need to replace * Tue Apr 24 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.32 with * Tue Apr 24 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> - 0.32-1 and rpmlint will be silent then. I don't think its related with whether upstream is using release tag in tarball name or not.
Parag: Nils is the upstream for the package and - if I have understood correctly - he implied that rather then incrementing the release tag, he prefers to increase the version tag each time he modifies something. Basically this comes down to the fact that he does not intend to really use the release tag, which is why he ignores it in the Changelog. Only that this decision makes rpmlint unhappy.
OK. As maintainer is also upstream developer so no issues then. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for for RPM. - rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM. + source files match upstream. c817a01e5bf60e30458df5b4b90d27d7 hwbrowser-0.32.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text COPYING is included in package. + %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc files are present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed correctly. + no scriptlets are used. + Provides: config(hwbrowser) = 0.32-1.fc7 + GUI app. APPROVED.
Parag, I already changed the version string in the changelog to "0.32-1", but only in the "upstream" CVS, not the actual built package. Once a new version (0.33) gets out, I'll surely remember why I put the -release in the changelog and will continue to do so. BTW, isn't someone supposed to close this if it is approved? Just curious...
Nils, once your package is approved you are supposed to ask creation of the CVS bits (see warren's mail, "cvs with flags" ) and after you import the package and build it in plague you are the one who should close this bz ticket.
(In reply to comment #14) > Parag, I already changed the version string in the changelog to "0.32-1", but > only in the "upstream" CVS, not the actual built package. Once a new version > (0.33) gets out, I'll surely remember why I put the -release in the changelog > and will continue to do so. > > BTW, isn't someone supposed to close this if it is approved? Just curious... anyone can CLOSE this bug. The reason I have not closed it immediately is that I thought you may also want to create EPEL cvs branch request. As package is always in CVS there is no requirement for setting fedora-cvs flag for Merge-Review packages. So you can close this review.
Manuel, Parag, as this is a merge review I don't think I should be asking for any CVS creation just yet: It will be in the combined Core+Extras for Fedora 7 and is part of RHEL5 anyway...
Me too I was thinking about EPEL when I was speaking about CVS. Anyway, I'd say that the answer to closing the bug is here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00380.html Please do correct me if I am wrong.
CLOSING this bug for now as reviewed version hwbrowser-0.32-1.fc7 of this package is already in rawhide.