SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla-3.0.0-0.2.rc1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla.spec Description: FileZilla is a fast FTP and SFTP client #232434 is a known "duplicate" of this request
Actually, there is a problem while handling locales with this version... Upstream is adviced, (hardcoded configure options will be removed for better handling locales...) Will changes license to GPLv2+ next time (may change to GPLv3, but not done...)
Ok thoses issue are solved upstream... I'm waiting for rc2 to provides fixes, until then, filezilla rc1 with locales fixes is in my kwizart-testing repository for fc7...
cool. Just checked in mock and found same problem as No translations found for filezilla in /var/tmp/filezilla-3.0.0-0.2.rc1.fc8-root-mockbuild
So, we are waiting for rc2 to start review...
SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla-3.0.0-0.2.rc2.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla.spec Description: FileZilla is a fast FTP and SFTP client
rpmlint reports on SRPM W: filezilla mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 76) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. rpmlint reports on RPM E: filezilla invalid-desktopfile /tmp/filezilla-3.0.0-0.2.rc2.fc8.i386.rpm.32204/usr/share/applications/filezilla.desktop .desktop file is not valid, check with desktop-file-validate Encoding field is missing from .desktop file
SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla-3.0.0-0.3.rc3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla.spec Description: FileZilla FTP, FTPS and SFTP client Spec changelog - Update to 3.0.0rc3 - Add BR gawk - Improve description/summary - Removed dual listed doc file (also fixed the rpmlint warning on src.rpm ) About the encoding line, this seems deprecated with Fedora 8. Upstream say so also Built on rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145790
looks ok but I do have some questions 1) why not to use fedora as vendor id? 2) didn't get the need to use __doc directory.
Actually "vendor_id" in Fedora guidelines is only used when upstream do not already have it... If upstream have it, then it must conform to rule about not using a different name. But this vendor field, while mandatory with older desktop-file-install version, is also exposed to be deprecated... There was a recent discution about that on the Fedora-devel mail-list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg01841.html About __doc, I use it because docs get often installed in the wrong place... But when they are in the right place, the problem still appear because the %doc macro take his path to begin from %{_builddir} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. So this tweak make the %doc macros usuable on installed docs... For now this tweak is used for only two files, but i expect it must be checked when final will be released. Maybe the doc content will be larger then...
(In reply to comment #9) > Actually "vendor_id" in Fedora guidelines is only used when upstream do not > already have it... If upstream have it, then it must conform to rule about not > using a different name. But this vendor field, while mandatory with older > desktop-file-install version, is also exposed to be deprecated... > > There was a recent discution about that on the Fedora-devel mail-list: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg01841.html > > But from https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg01857.html it said use current guidelines. > About __doc, I use it because docs get often installed in the wrong place... But > when they are in the right place, the problem still appear because the %doc > macro take his path to begin from %{_builddir} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. So > this tweak make the %doc macros usuable on installed docs... > > For now this tweak is used for only two files, but i expect it must be checked > when final will be released. Maybe the doc content will be larger then... > > OK.
SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla-3.0.0-1.kwizart.fc7.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/7/testing/filezilla/filezilla.spec Description: FileZilla FTP, FTPS and SFTP client - Update to 3.0.0 ( final ) - Add fedora to deskop file install Fedora 7 is missing gnutls-devel >= 1.5.4 and Fedora Core 6 is missing also wxGTK >= 2.8.4 For thoses interested, I will provide the necessary dependencies from my personnal testing repository... http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora
Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM. + source files match upstream. 9751433785d98e069f4c404c2d3d3231 FileZilla_3.0.0_src.tar.bz2 + 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 is included in package. + %doc files present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + no static libraries. + no .pc file 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. + update-desktop-database scriptlets are used. + Desktop file handled correctly. + filezilla-3.0.0-1.fc8 package -> Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgnutls.so.13 libgnutls.so.13(GNUTLS_1_3) libidn.so.11 libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0 libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_baseu_net-2.8.so.0 libwx_baseu_net-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_baseu_xml-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) rtld(GNU_HASH) + GUI app. APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: filezilla Short Description: FileZilla FTP, FTPS and SFTP client Owners: kwizart Branches: devel InitialCC: <empty> Commits by cvsextras: yes
cvs done.
Thx for the review! closing the bug for next release...
Thank you so much, Nicolas! I'm looking forward to installing Fedora 8 and using Filezilla w/o any problems!
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: filezilla New Branches: F-7 Since gnutls may going to be updated in F-7, that might be possible to have filezilla in F-7 also.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: filezilla New Branches: EL-4 EL-5