Spec URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat-0.9.4-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: ufiformat is a disk formatting utility for USB floppy devices. This is my first package for Fedora, so I need a sponsor.
Unofficial Package Review ========================= Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/i386 via mock in my personal box [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM:empty binary RPM:empty debuginfo RPM:empty spec:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPLv2+ [!] 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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] Package is not known to require ExclusiveArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/i386 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: only devel/i386 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [x] File based requires are sane. ======================= 1. spec file (suggestion): Source0 to http://www.geocities.jp/tedi_world/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 2. spec file: Add COPYING on %doc
Fixed the %doc (I thought I'd read somewhere to leave the "normal" ones out; I must have misread). I meant to have %{version} in the source line, I just forgot (I don't usually put %{name} but that's just me). I've updated the spec and SRPM at the above URLs. Thanks.
Chris, Please change version in spec file and make rebuild src.rpm
Sorry - I apparently re-uploaded the original copy. I bumped the release number just to make sure I didn't do it again.
Unofficial Package Review ========================= Spec URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat-0.9.4-2.fc8.src.rpm [OK] comment #1 [OK] rpmlint spec [OK] rpmlint rpm [OK] rpmlint srpm [OK] rpmlint rpm debuinfo [OK] mock: Config(fedora-devel-i386) APPROVED (Unofficial)
Thre is one small change I recommend. It is mostly cosmetic but makes the package closer to "preserve timestamps" rule we try to enforce. Please replace: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" This will preserve the timestamp of the man page. For the rest I concur with Kairo. No need to re-upload the spec/src.rpm just for that, just keep it mind and make sure you add the modification before uploading to CVS, once your package is officialy approved. Chris, I've noticed that you are quite active as a bug reporter and that you have also used mock in the past to rebuild packages locally. I am willing to sponsor you, but before that I would like to either see a couple of [unofficial] reviews performed by you or at least another packaged submitted by you. Could you please do that ?
I've updated to spec/SRPM to -3 to change the install line (otherwise I'd forget). I have been planning to try to do some reviews but I just haven't had time yet (maybe later this week). There are some other things I will want to submit once I get settled, but time has been an issue there as well.
Hmm, this seems to have fallen through the cracks. It looks like someone came along and added some needless bug alias which advanced the "last changed" date and made the ticket drop off of my "old tickets to look at" report. Oh, well. Anyway, Chris, did you still want to get this in? Could you post a link to your latest package?
Spec URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cmadams.net/fedora/ufiformat/ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc8.src.rpm I would still like to see this in Fedora. The biggest impediment is probably more in that I haven't done anything further to get myself sponsored. I will try to get a few more of the packages I have built locally together for review, but that will probably take a few weeks.
Honestly, anyone who waits around for eight months and still wants to contribute deserves sponsorship in my book. Especially now that it doesn't automatically grant access to the entire distro. This package is simple, builds fine in rawhide, and elicits no complaints from rpmlint. I can't really do any testing as I don't have the necessary equipment, though. All I can do is verify that the binary runs, which it does. I will sponsor you. It seems you've already applied for access, so I'll click the button and you can make your CVS request after everything syncs. * source files match upstream: da72377b4e5c1672457aca7a117427cb91bbf4be3035d00bb9ae34c376849bbe ufiformat-0.9.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: ufiformat = 0.9.4-3.fc10 ufiformat(x86-64) = 0.9.4-3.fc10 = libext2fs.so.2()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. The binary runs, but that's all I'm able to test. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ufiformat Short Description: Disk formatting utility for USB floppy devices Owners: cmadams Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
CVS Done
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc9
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc10
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc8
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ufiformat-0.9.4-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.