Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: This software helps you add a little more security to your desktop. It does so by detecting one of your bluetooth devices, most likely your mobile phone, and keeping track of its distance. If you move away from your computer and the distance is above a certain level (no measurement in meters is possible) for a given time, it automatically locks your desktop (or starts any other shell command you want).
Ok, it builds under Mock and it does run. Rpmlint have many error and warning :s Some issues that should be fixed: - The licence field isn't correct - the upstream isn't used - gettext is only a BuildRequire - use local corectly - /usr/share/blueproximity/proximity.glade is executable - name of the icon on the .desktop isn't correct - the package own /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/ and many other files MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package : -- src.rpm blueproximity.src:22: W: setup-not-quiet blueproximity.src: W: no-%build-section blueproximity.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) blueproximity.src: E: description-line-too-long This software helps you add a little more security to your desktop. It does so by detecting one of your bluetooth devices, most likely your mobile phone, and keeping track of its distance. If you move away from your computer and the distance is above a certain level (no measurement in meters is possible) for a given time, it automatically locks your desktop (or starts any other shell command you want). blueproximity.src: W: invalid-license GPL -- noarch.rpm blueproximity.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/blueproximity/proximity.glade blueproximity.noarch: E: description-line-too-long This software helps you add a little more security to your desktop. It does so by detecting one of your bluetooth devices, most likely your mobile phone, and keeping track of its distance. If you move away from your computer and the distance is above a certain level (no measurement in meters is possible) for a given time, it automatically locks your desktop (or starts any other shell command you want). blueproximity.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/fa/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/it/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/sv/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo blueproximity.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/locale/th/LC_MESSAGES/blueproximity.mo + 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: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. + 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: 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. + 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: 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: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + 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: 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: 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: 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. - 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. - 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: + 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. + SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. (i686 and x86_64) ~ SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. (not tested on ppc and pcc64) + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. + SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. + SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information.
New SRPM is blueproximity-1.2.4.orig-1.fc8.src in the same url. The Spec file has been updated. I really did not get the locale stuff.
Version: 1.2.4.orig Non numeric version string like alpha, beta, rc, cannot be simply putted into the Version tag, you should use the Release field for this. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a W: setup-not-quiet Setup is not quiet, you should use %setup -q. The source tag documents where to find the upstream sources for the rpm, in most cases this should be a complete URL to the upstream tarball. May be this: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/blueproximity/blueproximity-1.2.4.tar.gz
The release number must be updated : don't use 1.2.4.orig The http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4.orig-1.fc8.src was a 404 Please fix more bugs before request a new update : only 3 bugs were fixed (4 if the image name on the .desktop was fixed) For the local stuff look : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee
All of the above have been corrected: (Suggestions by both Benoît and Guidolin) New links are: SRPM url: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-2.fc8.src.rpm SPEC url: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec
In the .desktop the field Icon should be "Icon=blueproximity_base" In %file section please use : %{_datadir}/applications/fedora-%{name} Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/blueproximity/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Is more easier to use wen the package will be update pygtk2-libglade require pygtk2 which require pygobject2 so keep over pygobject2 and pygtk2 Please fix all rpmlint error and fixable warning : - E: description-line-too-long blueproximity.src: E: invalid-spec-name blueproximity-1.spec blueproximity.src:69: W: macro-in-%changelog setup blueproximity.src:73: W: macro-in-%changelog version blueproximity.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog name (to fix that use %%setup, %%{name} ... into the changelog) blueproximity.src: W: no-%build-section (add an empty %build section) blueproximity.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) And please update the date into the changelog (unless you can curve time)
Benoît: Fixed this in: Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-3.fc8.src.rpm
Description Line (too long) and mixed use of spaces and tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) weren't fixed
Benoît: Fixed this in: Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-4.fc8.src.rpm
fix W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.4-3 1.2.4-4.fc8 and I will do a full review
Benoît: If you can give me the rpmlint rules you're using I can check before updating. Anyway, this have been fixed: Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-4.fc8.src.rpm
yum install rpmlint and just run rpmlint on each rpm : rpmlint blueproximity-1.2.4-4.fc8.src.rpm rpmlint blueproximity-1.2.4-4.fc8.noarch.rpm (I will do the review tomorrow)
It still builds under mock, run, and rpmlint runs ok One issue must be fixed : you have a duplicate of blueproximity_base.svg (use a symlink) Many lines can be remove : install -d %{buildroot} install -d %{buildroot}%{_bindir} install -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/ install -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/locale/ install -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/locale/$i install -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/locale/$i/LC_MESSAGES/ mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ ( and modify next line to %{_datadir}/%{name} ) MUST Items: + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package : Ok + 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: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. + 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: 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. + 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: 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: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + 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: 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: 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: 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. + 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. + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: + 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. + SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. (i686 and x86_64) ~ SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. (not tested on ppc and pcc64) + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. + SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. + SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information.
Benoit: I fixed the duplicate of the png file, changed it for a symlink, but I still can't find for this to build without install -d'ing the directories. A little hint with this?
Benoit: Upstream does not have a make install or setup.py ... I've to create some directories manually, don't have any choice Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-5.fc8.src.rpm
You can remove : install -d %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/locale/ and for the symlink you can do something like : cd %{buildroot}%{_datadir} ln -s ../%{name}/pixmaps/%{name}_base.svg pixmaps/ cd -
Benoit: Thanks again for your help, fixed this in: Spec URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.awardspace.com/contrib/blueproximity-1.2.4-6.fc8.src.rpm
Great it's ok for me :)
Please add a proper cvs template from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure so we know what branches you need, etc. Please reset the fedora-cvs flag when you are ready.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: blueproximity Short Description: A tool that locks/unlocks your computer when your bluetooth device gets close/away from your computer Owners: ncorrare Branches: F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Nicolas: It doesn't appear that you are sponsored yet... you need to get sponsorship before we can add this package with you as maintainer. Can you take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored and see if you can do any of the items there to show your understanding of the guidelines? Clearing the cvs flag and setting the FE_NEEDSPONSOR blocker so sponsors can see this request...
Up
*** Bug 450226 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I have updated the spec file to version 1.2.5 The files are available at: http://law.hostsen.net/fedora/blueproximity/blueproximity.spec http://law.hostsen.net/fedora/blueproximity/blueproximity-1.2.5-1.fc9.src.rpm http://law.hostsen.net/fedora/blueproximity/blueproximity-1.2.5-1.fc9.noarch.rpm
So, where do we stand here? Nicolas: Did you have any other packages to submit? Can you do some 'pre-reviews' of other pending submissions to show that you know the guidelines?
Still no movement here? I have had someone else express interest in submitting this package, so I will close this review if I don't hear back soon.
No word here at all. I am closing this now.