Spec URL: http://themonospot.googlecode.com/files/themonospot-0.6.5.SPEC SRPM URL: http://themonospot.googlecode.com/files/themonospot-RPMS-0.6.5-1.i386.rpm Description: is a simple application that can be used to scan an avi file and extract some informations about audio and video data flow: * Video codec used * Frame size * Average video bitrate * File size * Total time * Frame rate * Total frames * Info data * Packet Bitstream * User data (in MOVI chunk) * Audio codec used * Average audio bitrate * Audio channels With themonospot is also possible modify FourCC informations (FourCC code in video chunk and FourCC description in stream header) and also change some problematic UserData values for table players (it set the value to DivX999b000p) Themonospot is multilanguage (from release 0.6.5) using language files in languages folder
Needs lots of work. Most obvious errors: - GPL is no longer a valid license tag. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/ for details - Applications/AudioVideo is not one of the standard groups - your %descriptions lacks a subject for the phrase that is included in the first paragraph. I also suggest to use "Using themonospot it is also possible to modify FourCC informations <rest of phrase here>" for the second paragraph. - the %distribution and %vendor tags should not be included in your spec (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) - Please use rpm macros instead of absolute paths (i.e. replace "./configure --prefix=/usr" with "%configure --prefix=%{_prefix}" or even better just with %configure ) - the desktop file should be installed according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755, not using ln;pixmaps should probably be included in %files - the .pc file should probably not be included - the version reported by the most recent entry in the changelog is not identical to the one of the package (0.6.5 versus 0.6.5-1) And last but not least, you should provide access to the src.rpm.
Uhm, you should also take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono
ok, i working on all this points, i will add a comment on this thread after uploaded new files
I writing new SPEC file with follow modify, if is ok for you i wait a comment to this thread to upload new files, thanks. CHANGED: > GPL is no longer a valid license tag. Changed to GPLv2 > Applications/AudioVideo is not one of the standard groups Changed to Audiovideo;AudioVideoEditing > your %descriptions lacks a subject for the phrase that is included in the > first paragraph. I also suggest to use "Using themonospot it is also possible > to modify FourCC informations <rest of phrase here>" for the second paragraph. Inserted subject in the first paragraph and "Using Themonospot it is..." in second > the %distribution and %vendor tags should not be included in your spec deleted %distribution and %vendor > Please use rpm macros instead of absolute paths (i.e. replace "./configure > --prefix=/usr" with "%configure --prefix=%{_prefix}" or even better just with > %configure ) changed with %configure > the desktop file should be installed according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755, > not using ln;pixmaps should probably be included in %files changed in [%post] section from ln to mv -f so the files will be moved in right path. > the .pc file should probably not be included deleted .pc file from %files list > the version reported by the most recent entry in the changelog is not > identical to the one of the package (0.6.5 versus 0.6.5-1) modified changelog version to 0.6.5-2 (as release number) and adjust date (delete time in according to Packaging Guidelines) > And last but not least, you should provide access to the src.rpm. I will generate with ... rpmbuild -ba --sign themonospot-0.6.5.SPEC so i will upload also src.rpm file
Please verify your work using rpmlint before uploading the new version. And by the way there is nothing wrong in signing the src.rpm, but this is not required for packages that are submitted for review. As a recommendation, please try to use the exact capitalization of the name of the application, mixing "Themonospot" and "themonospot" (as you seem to plan to do in the %description tag ) is not really a good idea. The most preferred variant is all lowercase, unless there is a valid reason to use something else (for instance if upstream uses something different).
> try to use the exact capitalization of the name of > the application, mixing "Themonospot" and "themonospot" set themonospot lower case also in %description i'm going to use rpmlint...
when i try to rpmbuild with SPEC file without .pc file from %files list, i had an error at the end of script. So i tryed to lunch rpmlint on an rpm generated within .pc file and this is result: themonospot.i386: W: no-documentation themonospot.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/themonospot-base.pc themonospot.i386: E: no-binary themonospot.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib themonospot.i386: E: unknown-key GPG#c8fa4777 themonospot.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv themonospot.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm i could think not so bad :)
modifing my makefile.in i obtain from rpmlint: themonospot.i386: W: no-documentation themonospot.i386: E: no-binary themonospot.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib themonospot.i386: E: unknown-key GPG#c8fa4777 themonospot.i386: W: empty-%post themonospot.i386: W: empty-%postun now i think it's ok ?
waiting, i uploaded this file: http://themonospot.googlecode.com/files/themonospot-0.6.5.SPEC http://themonospot.googlecode.com/files/themonospot-0.6.5-2.i386.rpm http://themonospot.googlecode.com/files/themonospot-0.6.5-2.src.rpm
- recommended fix: unless there is a very good reason, the spec file name should be identical to the name of the package (without the version) (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-625ebbc8678382beca8d0b02504d30e7b6f23791) and the suffix must be lowercase (mock does not identify the file to be used as spec as you can see here: ERROR: Exception(/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-2.src.rpm) Config(fedora-development-x86_64) 0 minutes 36 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock//fedora-development-x86_64/result ERROR: No Spec file found in srpm: themonospot-0.6.5-2.src.rpm - MUSTFIX: sha1sum of the included tarball does not coincide with upstream - MUSTFIX: there is a typo in %install, the buildroot is cleaned with _rm_ -fR not with _rpm_ - (minor) please change "Using themonospot it is also possible modify " to "Using themonospot it is also possible to modify" -
log for the failed build: checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c checking whether build environment is sane... yes checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p... /bin/mkdir -p checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for pkg-config... no configure: error: You need to install pkg-config error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5623 (%build)
on my fedora i installed src.rmp + spec file correctly, but i have already pkg-config, i have mono 1.2.6 and monodevelop 0.18 installed.
Even more missing BR: - mono-core - gtk-sharp2-devel With these packages added, compilation is successful but the %files section does not match what is build: Processing files: themonospot-0.6.5-3 error: File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/English.lf error: File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf Processing files: themonospot-debuginfo-0.6.5-3 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/English.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot-base.dll Note that your package MUST be able to be built in mock. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-351b11771f3898e032fcd70896ff21b8b82505c7
in my makefile.in i have mkdir "$(DESTDIR)$(programfilesdir)/languages" mv -f "$(DESTDIR)$(programfilesdir)/English.lf" "$(DESTDIR)$(programfilesdir)/languages" mv -f "$(DESTDIR)$(programfilesdir)/Italiano.lf" "$(DESTDIR)$(programfilesdir)/languages" so $(programfilesdir) should be different on different platforms... > MUSTFIX: there is a typo in %install, the buildroot is cleaned with _rm_ -fR > not with _rpm_ FIXED, i changed > sha1sum of the included tarball does not coincide with upstream I will upload a specific version for fedora distro, so there aren't update problems
i trying mock with mock rebuild -r fedora-8-i386 themonospot-0.6.5.src.rpm
> so $(programfilesdir) should be different on different platforms... I can post my buildlog if it is useful to you. And please test building using fedora-development as target >> sha1sum of the included tarball does not coincide with upstream >I will upload a specific version for fedora distro, so there aren't update problems There is no need to do that. You can apply selective patches for fedora from within the spec.
i upload rel 4 of files here http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.src.rpm with this rpmlint... themonospot.i386: W: no-documentation themonospot.i386: E: no-binary themonospot.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib themonospot.i386: E: unknown-key GPG#c8fa4777 themonospot.i386: W: empty-%post themonospot.i386: W: empty-%postun and now i lunch # mock rebuild -r fedora-devel-i386 themonospot-0.6.5.src.rpm
ERROR: No Spec file found in srpm.... why ? i verified and there is spec file
yeah.... success i renamed file .SPEC as .spec and... # mock rebuild -r fedora-devel-i386 themonospot-0.6.5-4.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 0.9.5 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start INFO: Start(themonospot-0.6.5-4.src.rpm) Config(fedora-development-i386) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata State Changed: running yum State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(themonospot-0.6.5-4.src.rpm) Config(fedora-devel-i386) 5 minutes 23 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock//fedora-development-i386/result
this is spec file and 2 output files of mock: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-4.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-4.src.rpm
manuel i wait your sign...
Couple of issues: 1. minor, but unpleasant for reviewers: [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ wget http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.spec --15:24:14-- http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/4-fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.spec => `themonospot-0.6.5.spec' Resolving www.integrazioneweb.com... 151.13.66.154, 83.103.22.154 Connecting to www.integrazioneweb.com|151.13.66.154|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 15:24:25 ERROR 404: Not Found. 2. mock build problems: build fails with Processing files: themonospot-0.6.5-4 error: File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/English.lf error: File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf Processing files: themonospot-debuginfo-0.6.5-4 Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/English.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot-base.dll RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/English.lf File not found: /var/tmp/themonospot-0.6.5-buildroot/usr/lib64/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/English.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot-base.dll 3. src.rpm issues: Needs work: * Source themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz is different from upstream (and this usually is a show stoppper) * BuildRoot should be one of those listed in the wiki at Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot. The difference is minor compared to an accepted one, so please change it. * Specfile should be in the format %{name}.spec (see Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Incidentally, are you already sponsored? I could not find you in FAS.
- i must adjust files on repository - i must upload tarball in same web dir and change in spec file the link - i must change BuildRoot it's right ? What is FAS ?
You have to include in the src.rpm the exact same tarball as available upstream. The BuildRoot should be one of the three values recommended in the wiki page. The .spec included in src.rpm (note that it could be different from the one included in the tar! ) must be named themonosport.spec FAS == Fedora Account System ( https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ )
FAS == Fedora Account System Registred as hman
Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored
i uploaded new tested files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-5.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-5.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz :-)
For a start, you still do have a wrong name for the .spec: [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ rpmlint themonospot-0.6.5*rpm themonospot.src: E: invalid-spec-name themonospot-0.6.5.spec In addition, permissions of the files that you have included in the spec are not those expected by rpmlint: error checking signature of themonospot-0.6.5-5.src.rpm themonospot.src: W: strange-permission themonospot-0.6.5.spec 0666 themonospot.src: W: strange-permission themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz 0666 And nothing was fixed with respect to building in mock, it fails with the same error as before (comments 13 and 22). Please test your src.rpm in x86_64 environment, this is the context where it fails.
- spec name corrected (same of other output) - permission problem solved, at my workhouse i use VirtualBox with shared folders and somethimes i need to give all privilege to move files - solved online repository application problem (sources difference problem) - mock with x86 work fine - rpmlint say: themonospot.i386: W: no-documentation themonospot.i386: E: no-binary themonospot.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib themonospot.i386: E: unknown-key GPG#c8fa4777 themonospot.i386: W: empty-%post themonospot.i386: W: empty-%postun NEW FILES... http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-6.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-6.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-6.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz With x86_64 test i had: Error: Missing Dependency: mktemp is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/bin/perl is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/bash is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Getopt::Long) is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/sh is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/sh is needed by package fedora-release-notes
I do not want to sound harsh and I will try to assist you if you want to follow my advice, but I think it's time to start learning a bit more. Programming is one avenue, packaging is another one and they do not necessarily overlap completely. As long as the src.rpm does not properly build on all architectures (or at least a valid reason to not build is provided) we are not going anywhere. The output of rpmlint for the .i386 binary is relevant, but not sufficient. The final aim is to have no output, i.e. no warning/no error (the unknown-key is a false alarm, can be ignored) AND to have the application built on all architectures supported by Fedora, including ppc and 64 bits. Try to fix your x86_64 environment, come to #fedora/#fedora-devel or use the appropriate mailing lists if you need assistance, but you should first prove that you know the packaging guidelines before getting accepted as contributor. So far you have proven that there is lot of room for improvement. For instance you have to convince your build -- either by modifying the source _in_ the tarball _or_ by patching in %prep -- that the language files should go in the same folder with the binary (if they are architecture dependent). Or maybe somewhere else in the opposite case. Either case, for the moment there is an error which must be solved.
Missing dependency of Mock for my x86_64 environment are caused from this other error of Mock ...Metadata file does not match checksum. Trying other mirror... I added also a dev repository in fedora-development-x86_64 mock config file, but same problem
maybe there is a problem with the mirror which is configured in your /etc/mock/fedora-devel-x86_64.cfg try to replace mirrorlist with a direct URL to a known godd mirror, similar to my config below (search for a mirror close to you! ): [fedora] name=fedora #mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=rawhide&arch=x86_64 baseurl=ftp://ftp.gts.lug.ro/fedora/linux/development/x86_64/os
known *good* mirror (of course)
i have always this response :( Error: Missing Dependency: mktemp is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /usr/bin/perl is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/bash is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Getopt::Long) is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/sh is needed by package redhat-rpm-config Error: Missing Dependency: /bin/sh is needed by package fedora-release-notes
Let's take it off bugzilla, we are fading away of the review (which I cannot do formally anyway because you need a sponsor). However I am willing to help you , so please get in touch in me either on IRC/freenode.net (I am wolfy over there) or send me by email your yum and mock configurations (the descriptions of Base and Updates from /etc/yum.repos.d/ and also /etc/mock/fedora-devel-x86_64.cfg) and I'll take a look. And speaking of sponsorship, did you read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored ?
(In reply to comment #29) > NEW FILES... > http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-6.spec > http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-6.src.rpm Returns 404...
New files :) http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-7.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-7.src.rpm
http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-7.src.rpm sorry
Where can I verify the license of this software?
this is a GPLv2 you can see it in spec file
No, we are not judging license from your spec file. We are judging license from the tarball itself.
ping?
sorry, i working on a project for my factory :(
Well, what should we do?
mamoru: I'd say we wait until the reporter has some more free time. There are/were packages waiting much longer than one month. As a side note, between 13.01 and 18.01 I have exchanged numerous mails with him (about this package) and he used to react quickly, but he was lacking some grasp on the fedora packaging rules.
first days of next week i should finish a documentation of my job for factory where i work, so after i can return on fedora package of themonospot. I can succeed to do it, don't doubt :-)
themonospot 0.6.5-8 FILES: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot.spec http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-8.i386.rpm CHANGES: - created tarball package with monodevelop 0.19.2 (solved lib/lib64 problem) so now the libdir is right on x86 and also on x86_64 - added COPYING.GPL file in tarball with GPL v2 license
using MOCK with fedora-devel-i386... PASS
For 0.6.5-8: * Source - Source tag must point to the URL from which we can actually receive the source used in the srpm by "wget -N", for example. When I try to download the source from the URL written as Source by wget -N, ------------------------------------------------------------------- $ LANG=C wget -N http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz --01:11:59-- http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz => `themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz' Resolving www.integrazioneweb.com... 151.13.66.154, 83.103.22.154 Connecting to www.integrazioneweb.com|151.13.66.154|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently Location: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot%2D0.6.5.tar.gz/ [following] --01:12:01-- http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot%2D0.6.5.tar.gz/ => `index.html' Reusing existing connection to www.integrazioneweb.com:80. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 139,900 (137K) [application/octet-stream] 100%[===================================================================>] 139,900 76.78K/s Last-modified header missing -- time-stamps turned off. 01:12:03 (76.63 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [139900/139900] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is the file downloaded named as index.html? - Also, ------------------------------------------------------------------- 131143 2008-01-18 18:06 themonospot-0.6.5-7/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz 139900 2008-03-13 18:00 themonospot-0.6.5-8/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz ------------------------------------------------------------------- the source changed. - You should not change the source tarball without changing version once it is published formally because this causes confusion for people using the tarball. - Or is 0.6.5 not formally published? Apart from Source problem: * Disttag - Please consider to use %?dist tag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag * License tag - The license tag should be "GPLv2+" (GPL version 2 and any later) judging from the contents of the files in the tarball. * ExcludeArch: - mono-core is currently not available on ppc64. * %configure ---------------------------------------------------------------------- %configure --prefix=%{_usr} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --prefix=%_usr is not needed. Please check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure. * optflags ---------------------------------------------------------------------- make RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - From build.log I don't think compiling this actually needs $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (this is usually used by gcc or g++) * --delete-original ----------------------------------------------------------------------- desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" \ --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ --delete-original \ %{name}-gui/resources/%{name}.desktop ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - You don't have to delete the desktop file in the source tarball (and usually you should not as this breaks rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit) * empty %post, %postun - From $ rpmlint themonospot ----------------------------------------------------------------------- themonospot.i386: W: empty-%post themonospot.i386: W: empty-%postun ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please remove these. * Directory ownership issue - Please make it sure that the directories created when installing this package are correctly owned by this package. For example: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot.exe themonospot-0.6.5-8.i386 [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/themonospot/ file /usr/lib/themonospot is not owned by any package -----------------------------------------------------------------------
For 0.6.5-8: * Source Problem solved, was a setting of my online webserver i'm working on other points
* Source solved, now work fine * Disttag i should read guidelines before use it. I would read it after solve all other problems * License tag changed in GPLv2+ * ExcludeArch added in spec file follow row ExcludeArch: ppc64 * %configure removed --prefix=%{_usr} * optflags I would solve it after solve all other problems * --delete-original i wouldn't delete the file .desktop in tarball because could be use for another installation. I already delete the file generated in bin/release from makefile * empty %post, %postun I would solve it after solve all other problems * Directory ownership issue solved, now: $ rpm -qf /usr/lib/themonospot/ themonospot-0.6.5-8 $ rpm -qf /usr/lib/languages/ themonospot-0.6.5-8 New Files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-8.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5-8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot.spec.tar.gz
Well, * Your latest srpm does not builds on x86_64. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=522200 * Please change the release number every time you change your spec file or srpm to avoid confusion * And again: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 131143 2008-01-18 18:06 themonospot-0.6.5-7/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz 131572 2008-03-17 05:34 themonospot-0.6.5-8/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz 139900 2008-03-15 02:37 themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please explain why the size of the tarball you are using in your srpm changes every time you create a new srpm without version number unchanged.
* Your latest srpm does not builds on x86_64 i'm working on this immediately * Please change the release number every time you change your spec file next release could be 0.6.5a-9 ? * Please explain why the size of the tarball you are using in your ... i rebuild with new monodevelop 1.0 and regenerated tarball. I need also modify manually a tarball file (themonospot-gui/makefile.in) to perform installation step
What I cannot understand now is whether the tarball 0.6.5 is released formally or not. - If 0.6.5 is a tarball which is already released as a formal release, then you must not change the tarball - Or if it is something we call "pre-release", then you should follow the subsection "Pre-Release packages" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines i.e. 0.6.5-0.1 -> 0.6.5-0.2 -> ..... (0.6.5 formal release?) -> 0.6.5-1 -> 0.6.5-2 -> (0.6.6 pre?) -> 0.6.6-0.1 -> 0.6.6-0.2 -> ..... Anyway please change the release number every time you modify your srpm.
0.6.5 is a formal release, so i would like to use 0.6.5-9
Then you must not change 0.6.5 tarball anymore. Instead you should change the version of the tarball as 0.6.5.1, 0.6.5.2, ...... and the srpm should be numbered as 0.6.5.1-1 -> 0.6.5.2-1 -> 0.6.5.3-1 -> .... When we use the EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) of rpm as "0.6.5-9", this means that this srpm are using the formally released 0.6.5 tarball and the release number "9" is just vendor (Fedora) side specific.
New Files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.1-1.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.1-1.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.1.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot.spec.tar.gz x86_64 should work fine now :)
New Files with COPYING.GPL (missing in 0.6.5.1) sorry http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.2-1.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.2-1.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.2.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.2.spec.tar.gz
Assigning.
I will review this package later, however as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket, I write a note: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: I hope this package will be accepted after some few works. But before I can accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
This is another my review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438293
For 0.6.5.2-1: * License - As far as I checked the files in the tarball, there are no files which specifies the version of GPL. In this case, we regard the license tag as "GPL+" (i.e. GPL at any version) Please check the section 9 of GPL text. * Disttag - I recommend to use %?dist tag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag Using this will make CVS process on Fedora easier.s * RPM_OPT_FLAGS - As in comment 49, this mono package doesn't call gcc or g++ and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS is not needed. * Empty %post, %postun - Please remove these. * %files entry - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is missing. - This time: -------------------------------------------------------- 228 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages 229 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/English.lf 230 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/English.lf 231 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf 232 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/languages/Italiano.lf 233 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot-base.dll 234 warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/themonospot/themonospot.exe -------------------------------------------------------- ! Note When you write -------------------------------------------------------- %files %{_libdir}/%{name}/ -------------------------------------------------------- this contains the directory %_libdir/%name itself and all files/directories/etc under %_libdir/%name, while -------------------------------------------------------- %files %dir %{_libdir}/%{name} -------------------------------------------------------- contains the directory %_libdir/%name only. * Documents - Please add COPYING.GPL to %doc (note that the permission of this file should be 0644).
New Files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.3-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.3.spec.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.3.tar.gz * License added README and COPYING to %doc. In README file is specifies the version of GPL (v2) * Disttag now spec file use Disttag * RPM_OPT_FLAGS delete flag in make command * Empty %post, %postun removed * %files entry added %defattr(-,root,root,-) in files section * warning: File listed twice.... removed from files section path of "languages" and "application" folders no more warning rpmlint now say me only: themonospot.i386: E: no-binary themonospot.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib themonospot.i386: E: unknown-key GPG#c8fa4777 i have only a problem now: Directory ownership issue, i don't know how solve.
Well, today I didn't check this however: (In reply to comment #63) > i have only a problem now: > Directory ownership issue, i don't know how solve. As said in comment 62, -------------------------------------------------------- %files %{_libdir}/%{name}/ -------------------------------------------------------- contains the directory %_libdir/%name itself and all files/directories/etc under %_libdir/%name (correctly).
so i could use in files section only this row %{_libdir}/%{name}/ to add all files/folders under %{_libdir}/%{name} and remove this rows %{_libdir}/%{name}/%{name}.exe %{_libdir}/%{name}/%{name}-base.dll %{_libdir}/%{name}/languages/English.lf %{_libdir}/%{name}/languages/Italiano.lf
New files without problems :-) http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.4-1.fc8.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.4-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.4.spec.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.4.tar.gz
Okay, a few more things. For 0.6.5.4-1: * %{name}, %{release} tag on Source - I suggest to use ----------------------------------------------------- Source: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz ----------------------------------------------------- With this you don't have to modify SourceURL when the version is upgraded. * License - README reads that this is released under GPLv2 only so the License tag must be "GPLv2", not "GPLv2+". * Parallel make - Support parallel make if possible, otherwide write a comment in the spec file that Makefile in this package does not support it. Check the section "Parallel make" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines * Documents - Please add README to %doc. * %{?dist} tag in changelong - must be removed as this causes to change the %changelog entry when %dist actually changes (especially on rawhide). Simply ------------------------------------------------------- * Fri Jan 04 2008 hman <hmandevteam> 0.6.5.4-1 - .... ------------------------------------------------------- is enough. * Empty debuginfo file - rpmlint shows -------------------------------------------------------- themonospot-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package -------------------------------------------------------- This is very common for mono packages. To prevent debuginfo rpm from being created, please follow the section "Useless or incomplete debuginfo packages due to other reasons" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo
new files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.5.spec.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.5-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.5-1.fc8.i386.rpm * %{name}, %{release} tag on Source used themonospot-0.6.5.tar.gz as sources * License modified licence tag as GPLv2 * Parallel make modified make section as: make %{?_smp_mflags} * Documents is already present in spec file in %files section %doc README * %{?dist} tag in changelong deleted %{?dist} from changelog * Empty debuginfo file added to spec file %define debug_package %{nil}
So again you must not use 0.6.5 tarball any more :)
in tar.gz there is themonospot-0.6.5.5 folder
now i understand, wait 3 min.
new files: http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc8.i386.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc8.src.rpm http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.6.spec.tar.gz http://www.integrazioneweb.com/themonospot/packages/fedora/themonospot-0.6.5.6.tar.gz
Well, - This package itself is now okay - It seems your another review request can be approved with a little more fix --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This package (themonospot) is APPROVED by me --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". It seems that the procedure of CLA signing seems a bit changed. At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 7/8, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
I follow new Fedora CLA procedure, my FAS (Fedora Account System) name is hman Now i need a sponsor for my project :-)
i modified also my other review request MONOSIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438293 and i trying to use koji.fedoraproject.org, but when i try to login i receive an error.
Well, I cannot see that you have applied for cvsextras membership. Would you revisit FAS2 page and apply for cvsextras membership? (Perhaps you have to select "Apply For a new Group")
i apply now for cvsextras :)
Now I should be sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" wiki again.
i tying to set fedora‑cvs flag on post, but i have permissions. I tryed to cvs co themonospot but: Warning: Permanently added 'cvs.fedoraproject.org,209.132.176.51' (RSA) to the list of known hosts. Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). cvs [checkout aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any)
cvs and ssh is now ok New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: themonospot Short Description: An Avi parser and content descriptor Owners: hman Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp Cvsextras Commits: yes
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: themonospot Short Description: An Avi parser and content descriptor Owners: hman Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7
themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
themonospot-0.6.5.6-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc9
themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc8
themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
themonospot-0.7.1.1-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.