Spec URL: ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless.spec.fc6 SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.100-0.070507.src.rpm Description: Peless is a simple text file lister. It only displays files and never modifies them. It can display multiple files using a tabbed notebook, display international characters, and search the files for regular expressions or literal expressions. Users can choose the fonts used to display files.
I'll take a look later tonight.
(In reply to comment #1) > I'll take a look later tonight. On second thoughts, you don't seem to be in FAS, so you'll need a sponsor (I'm not one), but here are a few notes: URL is meant to be the URL to upstream Source0: Should be a FQDN (i.e. http://www.foo.com/path/to/bar.tar.gz) Group: is incorrect, (check GROUPS in /usr/src/doc/rpm-%{ver} for valid groups) The BR doesn't seem to follow guidelines We don't use the Vendor tag anymore Ditto for Distribution and Prefix Summary is too simplistic _prefix, _sharedir etc are already defined as RPM macros. PLEASE read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join fully up to about Build System tools. If you want an example of a spec file that recently passed review check out: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/windowlab.spec http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/ocaml-SDL.spec or have a look around the fedora CVS where there are plenty of well maintained SPEC files.
Paul, would you rewrite your spec file? The guilelines are mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines You can also check the existing spec file for example. e.g.: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/xterm/xterm.spec?root=core a bit more complicated example: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/kazehakase/kazehakase.spec?root=extras
Ok. I believe I have addressed many of the problems that I understood. Also, I have added internationalization support (0 languages currently supported). Please find the following urls: SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.145-0.070609.src.rpm Spec URL: ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/peless.spec tarball URL: http://download.berlios.de/peless/peless-1.145.tar.bz2 Please tell me if any additional fixes need to be made, or if I have failed to fix any problem.
Well, again read the spec files of other packages and guidelines on the URL above then rewrite the spec file. * Don't use unneeded macros. Why do you have to define %_build_requires or so? * Don't use date for release number unless the source is cvs, svn, or so. For formal release tarball, release number must be <simple integer>%{?dist} except for some exceptions. * For Requires, please don't like explicit packages' requirements which are automatically checked by rpmbuild by libraries' dependency check. * vendor tag must not be used * rewrite the part of calling configure with %configure macro * [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT must not / and this should be removed. * install-strip is forbidden. This disables to create debuginfo rpm. * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_DIR/file.list.%{name} ..... All of these are not needed. %clean automatically removes $RPM_BUILD_DIR
In the %files section, this line %{_prefix}/bin/peless should be replaced with %{_bindir}/peless and %doc should be stripped from this line: %doc %_mandir/man1/peless.1.*
ping again?
There will be a new release and spec file within 2 weeks. I was diverted to other issues.
OK please find the following new release: http://download.berlios.de/peless/peless-1.156.tar.bz2 and a new spec file: https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora BTW;Berlios seems to have let its certificates slip. You might have to override certification to download these files. I have tried to fix most of the problems noted above. Please notify me of any further problems! Thank You.
* Do CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, PKG_CONFIG_PATH need to be set explicitly? %configure sets CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS (please check what %configure does by 'rpm --eval %configure') and pkg-config automatically searched %_libdir/pkgconfig and no .pc files must be installed under %_datadir/pkgconfig. * desktop file should be installed by using desktop-file-install (in desktop-file-utils) * Now we recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Please use macros. /usr should be replaced with %_prefix
OK I believe I have fixed these problems with a new spec file at: https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora beware of berlios' expired certificate. Please let me know of further problems you discover. Thank You.
Well, please also create a SRPM and post the URL of it so that we can download and rebuild it.
And from next time please increment the release number every time you modify your spec file/srpm (when version number is increased you can again set release number as 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Increase the "Release" tag every time you upload a new package to avoid confusion. The reviewer and other interested parties probably still have older versions of your SRPM lying around to check what has changed between the old and new packages; those get confused when the revision didn't change.
OK, I have increased the release number. Please find: https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora (the spec) and ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.156-2.src.rpm (.SRPM) Thank You.
Much better!! For -2: * Desktop file - Catetory "Application" is deprecated and should be removed (use --remove-category Application) - Use fedora as vendir_id. i.e. desktop-file-install --vendor fedora .... and this will create fedora-peless.desktop (and this case, use "--remove-original": please check the section "Desktop files" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines ) * Packager/URL - Please remove the line "Packager". This is automatically set on Fedora side - And use https://developer.berlios.de/projects/peless/ as URL. * Documents - Why do you want to include philo.txt as documents? * Changelog - Please also add the EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) to %changelog entry. For example: -------------------------------------------------------------------- * Sat Jul 28 2007 Paul Elliott <pelliott> - 1.156-2 - implement changes requested by Mamoru Tasaka on 2007-07-26 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, this package will be (almost?) okay if you fix the issues above. However, as this is a sponsor requested ticket, please read below: -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
OK, please find: https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora and ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.156-3.src.rpm I have removed 'Application' from the categories by changing the --with-dtcat parameter to %configure. Made fedora the vendor-id. added the --delete-original parameter to desktop-file-install. Removed the Packager line. Removed philo.txt from the list of files distributed to end user. Changed URL line to https://developer.berlios.de/projects/peless/
peless is ready to be translated into other languages. if you cd to the po directory, and do make peless.pot you will make a .pot file. However, there are currently 0 translations. po/LINGUAS is a empty file. I have not got anybody to translate anything. Question: Should the .spec file have a %find_lang line?
* for %find_lang: (In reply to comment #17) > However, there are > currently 0 translations. > Should the .spec file have a %find_lang line? - Should NOT. Two points. * desktop file name -------------------------------------------------------- mv ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/fedora-%{name}.desktop ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop -------------------------------------------------------- - Remove this line. i.e. the corresponding %file entry should be %{_datadir}/applications/fedora-%{name}.desktop . * macros in %changelog - Now you can see in the changelong %configure is expanded. To avoid this, use %% in %changelog, i.e. --------------------------------------------------------- %changelog <snip> - by removing it from --with-dtcat parameter to %%configure --------------------------------------------------------- Still I am waiting for your new request or your pre-review of other persons' review requests.
https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.156-4.src.rpm OK, I have done this but I do not understand it. None of the files on my system in /usr/share/applications/ begin with 'fedora-'. I am totally unqualified to review other people's pre-review requests. This byzantine process has me totally intimidated. There seem to be snakes everywhere waiting to bite you. For example, I could find no documentation that setting vendor=fedora would change the name of the resulting desktop file. I would not want to inflict my advise on someone else's project. Perhaps someday I will have a second project and I will qualify that way. At least that way, I will not mess up someone else's project, which is probably very important to them.
(In reply to comment #19) > https://svn.berlios.de/svnroot/repos/peless/spec/peless.spec.fedora > ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/pub/peless/fc6/SRPMS/peless-1.156-4.src.rpm - Well, currently I cannot connent to ftp://ftp.BerliOS.de/? > > OK, I have done this but I do not understand it. None of the files on my system > in /usr/share/applications/ begin with 'fedora-'. - On my system: ------------------------------------------------------- $ ls -al /usr/share/applications/fedora-*.desktop | wc -l 75 ------------------------------------------------------- > I am totally unqualified to review other people's pre-review requests. - No, to become a Fedora maintainer also means * you can review and advice other person's review requests * you must fix your package when bugs are reported, packaging policy is changed, etc.... So we expect that Fedora maintainers have at least certain skill of packaging and modifying srpms. This is why Fedora package collection takes sponsor system. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored So as written in the URL above everyone who wants to get sponsored to maintain packages in Fedora must "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" (quoted) Currently I sponsor 27 people and all my sponsornee passed my request. > For example, I could find no documentation that > setting vendor=fedora would change the name of the resulting desktop file. - desktop-file-install --help-all > I would not want to inflict my advise on someone else's project. - Again, this skill is needed for Fedora maintainers, so please try. All my sponsornee actually did pre-review of other persons' review requests or sumbitted other review requests.
I just do not feel compentent to pre-review other people's software. Sometimes it take me an extremely long time to figure out an issue related to my own software. Since I am the sole developer of peless, this does not hurt anybody. I would not want someone else's project held up by my delays, or messed up by my errors. I do not feel comfortable with the fedora process which is the most complicated I have encountered. I was able to get peless into debian without the problems I encountered here. I am gratefull for the help you have given me, and am extremely sorry if this causes problems for you. I did not know about this requirement when I submitted peless into the fedora process. I will have to wait until I have a second project. In the meantime, perhaps I will put the fedora version of peless into a private repository somewhere.
Sorry, but I cannot admit that you don't like to do a pre-review. For now I withdraw reviewing this request.
This looks like it is not moving, so I close it. Feel free to reopen if things change. > I just do not feel compentent to pre-review other people's software. Sometimes > it take me an extremely long time to figure out an issue related to my own > software. Paul, once again -- doing quality reviews of other packages proves that you are familiar with packaging rules. You can not maintain a package without being familiar with process of making good packages. > I do not feel comfortable with the fedora process which is the most > complicated I have encountered. I was able to get peless into debian without > the problems I encountered here. In my opinion the Fedora process, though being quite strict, is very well documented. My personal experience is that it allows us for much easier mainteance and quality assurance of packages. If debian accepts packages from people that are not familiar with doing good packages -- well, that's their decision. > I am gratefull for the help you have given me, and am extremely sorry if this > causes problems for you. I did not know about this requirement when I submitted > peless into the fedora process. I will have to wait until I have a second > project. In the meantime, perhaps I will put the fedora version of peless into > a private repository somewhere. Anyways, thanks for an attempt. I encourage you to get familiar with the Fedora guidelines and will help you if anything is not clear in case you are interested. Otherwise maybe once someone else will submit your package for review.