Spec URL: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy-0.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Gypsy is a GPS multiplexing daemon which allows multiple clients to access GPS data from multiple GPS sources concurrently.
Updated and cleaned some of the spec SPEC: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy.spec SRPM: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy-0.6-2.fc9.src.rpm
Trying to build the package in mock shows that it misses a BuildRequires: xsltproc Once that is added, it builds fine. Here is the rpmlint report on the resulting packages: [mclasen@localhost newcvs]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-9-i386/result/gypsy*.i386.rpm gypsy.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/Gypsy.conf The warning can be ignored, since it is common pracise for files in that directory to not be marked as conffiles.
package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok, but please add a newline before %description license: ok license field: ok, but it would be nice to add a comment explaining where each license applies (or just say 'for details see LICENSE') license files: ok spec file language: ok spec file legibility: ok sources: ok buildable: ok ExcludeArch: n/a build deps: must add libxslt locale handling: n/a ldconfig: ok relocatable: n/a directory: ownership: -devel should require gtk-doc for /usr/share/gtk-doc/html duplicate files: ok permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok content: permissible documentation: n/a %doc: ok headers: ok static libs: n/a pc files: ok shared libraries: ok devel package: ok la files: ok gui apps: n/a file ownership: ok %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok
Just a clarification for the license note. Would I put the 'see LICENSE file' note in the actual license field or somewhere else? I have a new version of the spec file done once I can update that component.
In a comment, something like: # see LICENSE for details License: FOO and BAR
Updated SPEC: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy.spec SRPM: http://fedora.roving-it.com/rawhide/gypsy-0.6-3.fc9.src.rpm
Looks fine now. Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gypsy Short Description: Gypsy is a GPS multiplexing daemon Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done, but I changed the description to just "a GPS multiplexing daemon" as the package name is redundant there. Let me know if you disagree and would like it changed.
In CVS and built in Koji. As far as I can see this now will be pushed to rawhide, and I need to request builds Bodhi for F9/F8? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=612373
Yes, after some consultation, filing it in bodhi as 'enhancement' is the right thing to do (at some point, bodhi will also grow an explicit 'new package' type, but for now, 'enhancement' is the closest) You should also add the new package to comps at an appropriate place.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml for some hints about comps
In rawhide and F-9 testing updates