Spec URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/telepathy-idle.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/telepathy-idle-0.0.5-1.src.rpm Description: A full-featured IRC connection manager for the Telepathy project. Note there is a newer version of telepathy-idle, but it depends on telepathy-glib which isn't in Fedora yet since that package has some issues that need to be worked out before submission.
Created attachment 154829 [details] Mock build log for telepathy-idle
Hello; Firstly this is my first attempt to review so something can be convoluted. In this case correct me please. Version 0.0.5 isn't the newest. Here is 0.1.0: http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/releases/telepathy-idle/telepathy-idle-0.1.0.tar.gz Otherwise, check for telepathy-idle-0.0.5-1: (looks fine) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK, clear * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK, I think so. * MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK; LGPL * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK; LGPL 2.1, February 1999 * MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK; COPYING * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK; 4e782df6d3858b4886d3a23be475c17e * MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK; i386 * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK; no ExcluseArch meanwhile; No notice from upstream. * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. OK * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK * MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. OK * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK * MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK * MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK; * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK; There is no header files in telepathy-idle package. * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. Ok * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK; Not devel * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK; No GUI. * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK; simple ASCII ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks absolutely terrific; and upgraded package is on http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/telepathy-idle-0.1.0-1.fc7.src.rpm APPROVED!!!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: telepathy-idle Short Description: IRC connection manager for Telepathy Owners: bdpepple, mcepl Branches: FC-6 FC-7
This ticket is quite confusing. It's not assigned to anybody. Who reviewed it? It looks like the person who approved it is the person who is updating the packages, which is, well, rather odd.
The package that Matej references in comment #3 can't go into Fedora yet, since it depends on a package (telepathy-glib) which isn't in Fedora, as noted in my initial comment #1. Matej was hosting my original spec & srpm, since I retired my old web server.
Dropping the CVS request. You can't review your own package.
(In reply to comment #7) > Dropping the CVS request. You can't review your own package. Umm, I didn't review the package.
Tom, from the bug's activity it looks like - Šimon Lukašík did a review, but avoided to assign it to himself or approve it because he considers himself not experienced enough - Matej Cepl approved it, but forgot to assign the package to himself I guess that the proper continuation is (assuming Simon's review is correct and Matej did verify it) - Matej should assign the package to himself and approve it (hence fedora-review+) - Brian should afterwards make the CVS request and set fedora-cvs?
Reposting this for review since there has been so much confusion: Spec URL: http://spotbox.dyn.dhs.org/telepathy-idle.spec SRPM URL: http://spotbox.dyn.dhs.org/telepathy-idle-0.0.5-1.src.rpm Description: A full-featured IRC connection manager for the Telepathy project. **Note** there is a newer version of telepathy-idle, but it depends on telepathy-glib which isn't in Fedora yet since that package has some issues that need to be worked out before submission.
I'd be happy to do a formal review of this and stave off any confusion... Look for a full review in a few.
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 4e782df6d3858b4886d3a23be475c17e telepathy-idle-0.0.5.tar.gz 4e782df6d3858b4886d3a23be475c17e telepathy-idle-0.0.5.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Non blocker/Cosmetic: rpmlint says: W: telepathy-idle mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 13) Fix if you like. 2. possible missing buildrequires? From the build.log: ./configure: line 20691: GTK_DOC_CHECK: command not found BuildRequires: gtk-doc?
(In reply to comment #12) > 2. possible missing buildrequires? From the build.log: > ./configure: line 20691: GTK_DOC_CHECK: command not found > BuildRequires: gtk-doc? The tarball contains no documentation to create with gtk-doc, so adding it as a BR is fairly pointless right now.
Ah yes, sorry about that. A closer look does indeed show no docs for gtk-doc. ;( ok. I see no blockers left, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review once this package is imported and built.
No worries. Thanks for the review, Kevin! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: telepathy-idle Short Description: IRC connection manager for Telepathy Owners: bdpepple Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC:
not doing cvs. confused beyond belief. Just kidding. CVS done.
thanks, spot. ;)