Spec URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1434-1.spec SRPM URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1434-1.src.rpm Description: System-installed part of the Etoys activity for OLPC
Some quick comments about your package: - You don't used the %{_smp_mflags} macro in the make step - you don't cleaned the buildroot in the %clean section
Fixed _smp_mpflags and cleaning New Spec URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1451-1.spec New SRPM URL: http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/etoys-2.0.1451-1.src.rpm
Just a few comments; I can't build this because the dependency isn't in, but I slanced over the spec file. Don't use Prefix: or Vendor:. http://www.squeakland.org/ looks to be a better URL. There's no need for the [ -n "%{buildroot}" -a "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf "%{buildroot}" magic. You set the buildroot in the spec; it won't be '/'. It's not really necessary to include the full upstream changelog as your changelog, although it's OK if that's what you want to do. The unversioned doc directory is odd. Most packages use %doc to mark documentation in the source directory; rpm will copy it into a versioned directory under /usr/share/doc. I'm honestly not sure if an unversioned documentation directory is OK.
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll be on vacation in August, but will get back to this afterwards.
Another issues: - provide a full URL in Source0 to get the tarball or include a comment how to generate the tarball - do not use /usr but %{_prefix} - %files needs a defattr line - use %{_libdir} and %{_datadir} in %files - is ROOT=%{buildroot} in %build really needed? - consider using disttag Please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros (it's about %{_libdir} and other macros) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines (defattr) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-beca3bf84972f19a384cc2e5091ed47c2b3cebc7 (disttag) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL (about the URL in Source0)
Bert, you are not yet sponsored according to the Fedora Account System, please read: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored In case that OLPC packge maintainers do not need to be sponsored, please tell me.
Anything happening here?
I've just been busy with Real Coding so not much time for house keeping here. Will get back to this ASAP.
Bert says in an e-mail: This doesn't work because I cannot sign the CLA on behalf of Viewpoints. I'm only a consultant for them, not a legal representative. I have explained the reasoning for the CLA but have also heard whole companies can sign a CLA which may alleviate Bert's burden. Kicking to FE-Legal so that they can explain more and give Bert options. This is also an issue with bug #247983
Any movement over the past three months?
Not that I know of - although of course we have been busy hacking (see http://etoys.laptop.org/srpm/ for newer versions). Actually, maybe the simpler way is for someone else to become Fedora maintainer for Squeak and Etoys (I'm not even a regular Fedora user).
I don't think this is possible to move forward, given the fact that squeak-vm is not acceptable for Fedora in its current state. Closing as CANTFIX.