Spec URL: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec SRPM URL: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.4-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: Multi-vcs GUI commit tool. Supports: mercurial, bazaar, git, subversion, monotone, cvs
https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.4-2.fc8.src.rpm Changed to noarch package
Add install qct.py https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.4-3.fc8.src.rpm
Update to upstream 1.5. https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.5-1.fc8.src.rpm
Let's set review request flag
Since I already fucked up and mistakingly assigned this to myself I'll review this bad boy as punishment.
Shouldn't you include the documentation from the doc subfolder as documentation, also you state this supports multiple VCS' yet only mercurial has a subpackage, I would have expected one for each supported VCS - care to enlighten me? Also do you need a sponsor? Regardless here we go: === GOOD === + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + 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. + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + 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. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + 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 (http://www.ioccc.org/). + 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. + MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. + 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. + 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. + MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. + 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. + 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. + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. === BAD === rpmlint failures: * qct.src:23: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT * qct.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install - 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: * Missing permissions for mercurial entry - 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. * no .desktop and no comment explaining the lack thereof - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. * Does not clean buildroot on %install === DOESN'T APPLY === - 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: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - 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. - 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. - 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) - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - 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. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
Please see https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.5-4.fc8.src.rpm
== Good == Odd noarch vs. building arch specific stuff is gone Permissions correct .desktop file no present correct cleaning on %install == Minor == adding X-Fedora to the .desktop file is considered cruft * Nuke it from orbit, the only way to be sure rpmlint complains: qct.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 3) * minor but for consistency please fix this. qct-mercurial.x86_64: W: no-documentation * minor, unsure, you might want to consider putting the correct README file in this package. qct-mercurial.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/mercurial/hgrc.d/qct.rc * ignore qct.x86_64: E: no-binary * ignore == Bad == rpmlint complains: qct-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package * if you are not generating debug symbols then add: %define debug_package %{nil} to the top of your spec to disable building -debuginfo So nothing major left, just one more rev for good measure to fix the last few minor problems.
https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct.spec https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/qct-1.5-5.fc8.src.rpm
Thank you, I'm pleased to label this, APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qct Short Description: Multi-vcs GUI commit tool Owners: nbecker Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: david Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.