Spec URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/olpc-hardware-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/olpc-hardware-manager-0.4.1-1.src.rpm Description: The OLPC Hardware manager
The plan is to add this package to the olpc-2 branch.
Needs to require dbus-python and pygobject2. I would recommend using "install -p -D -m 0755" to install the files rather than "mkdir -p && cp". Pointers to somewhere where the code can be downloaded so that the files can in the SRPM can be compared. The OLPC git web interface doesn't work well for raw access to the files, so maybe a short script that uses git to clone the repo and check out the proper revision would work. W: olpc-hardware-manager no-documentation Should at least include a copy of the GPL. W: olpc-hardware-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/olpc-hardware-manager.conf Ignore. W: olpc-hardware-manager incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.1-1 0.4.1-1.fc8 Needs updated changelog entry. W: olpc-hardware-manager service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager Probably OK for OLPC but if this package is branched for Fedora it should not be started by default. W: olpc-hardware-manager no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager Probably OK. W: olpc-hardware-manager strange-permission olpc-hardware-manager 0755 W: olpc-hardware-manager strange-permission hardwaremanager.py 0755 My preference would be to store the files mode 0644 and then to change the permissions when installing. E: olpc-hardware-manager no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Add a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" W: olpc-hardware-manager no-%prep-section W: olpc-hardware-manager no-%build-section Add empty W: olpc-hardware-manager mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 1) Easily fixed. I'll upload some patches to fix some of these (and email them to the submitter).
Created attachment 157147 [details] Differences between spec file in upstream git repo and what was submitted.
Created attachment 157148 [details] Changes to bring RPM packaging into line with Fedora guidelines.
Created attachment 157149 [details] More changes to get spec to comply with Fedora standards.
Created attachment 157150 [details] Add requires for dbus-python and pygobject2
I applied your patches, thanks! There is a problem though: + cp -pr COPYING /var/tmp/olpc-hardware-manager-0.4.1-2.fc7-root-marco/usr/share/doc/olpc-hardware-manager-0.4.1 cp: cannot stat `COPYING': No such file or directory Suggestions or patches are welcome :)
The COPYING file is there in the 2nd patch, I swear! Hmmm I guess the COPYING file needs to go somewhere where the %doc macro can actually find it....
Created attachment 157170 [details] Copy the COPYING file to somewhere that the doc macro can find it.
Pushed patch 157170, fixed permissions. Should be all fixed: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/olpc-hardware-manager-0.4.1-3.fc7.src.rpm http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/olpc-hardware-manager.spec Thanks for the help!
Created attachment 157365 [details] Fix inconsistent usage of macros.
Created attachment 157366 [details] Clean up post scriptlet and add proper requires for post and preun scriptlets.
Created attachment 157367 [details] Update comments on how to download/verify code.
1 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. W: olpc-hardware-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/olpc-hardware-manager.conf Can be ignored I think... W: olpc-hardware-manager service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager For the OLPC-2 branch this is fine, however if the package ever makes it to a Fedora branch the service should not start by default. W: olpc-hardware-manager no-reload-entry /etc/init.d/olpc-hardware-manager Can be ignored... 2 - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK 3 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK 4 - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK 5 - 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) 6 - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK 7 - 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 8 - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK 9 - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). OK 10 - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK (no upstream tarball, verified by checking out code from upstream repository, see patch 157367) 11 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK (F-7/i386) 12 - 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues... OK 13 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK 14 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK 15 - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package 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. An example of the correct syntax for this is... OK 16 - 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 17 - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. OK 18 - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK 19 - 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 20 - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK 21 - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK (assuming patch 157365 is applied) 22 - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK 23 - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) OK 24 - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK 25 - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. OK 26 - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. OK 27 - 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 28 - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK 29 - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK 30 - 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK 31 - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK 32 - MUST: Release tag must contain %{?dist}. 33 - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK 34 - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK 35 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK (F-7/i386) 36 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Untested (no access to OLPC hardware) 37 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Untested (no access to OLPC hardware) 38 - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. REMINDER: Check for condrestart if a service is restarted by scriptlets. REMINDER: Verify that non-chkconfig/ldconfig commands have "|| :". OK (assuming patch 157366 is applied) 39 - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK APPROVED, assuming last three patches posted are applied.
Awesome, thanks! I'll make sure to apply all the patches when importing.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: olpc-hardware-manager Short Description: OLPC hardware manager Owners: mpg Branches: OLPC-2 InitialCC: mpg
Upping priority since it's important for OLPC.
CVS done. BTW, I'm not sure anyone pays attention to the priority field.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: olpc-hardware-manager New Branches: OLPC-3
OLPC-3 branch is not needed and has not been done.