Spec URL: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg-0.9.6-0.1.src.rpm Description: This package contains IP Messenger for the GNOME2 desktop environment. IP Messenger is a pop up style message communication software for multi platforms. It is based on TCP/IP(UDP). Win, Win16, Mac/MacOSX, X11R6/GTK/GNOME, Java, Div version and all source is open to public. You can get in the following URL. http://www.ipmsg.org/index.html.en
Practice Review: rpmlint not silent.. g2ipmsg.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot IP Messenger for GNOME 2. g2ipmsg.src: W: invalid-license GPL g2ipmsg.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/g2ipmsg-0.9.6/COPYING g2ipmsg.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/g2ipmsg.schemas spec file does not include full url for source source of version 0.9.6 not available from included website Source does not include the full GPL license Other than the above issues I was able to build with mock and rpmbuild. The package installs and runs fine.
In addition to #2, I would add: The the license looks more like BSD than GPL. Desktop file is handled incorrectly: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop That's just a cursory look.
Also, a mock build indicates no BuildRequire problems.
Spec: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg.spec SRPM: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg-0.9.6-0.2.src.rpm Updated, * Tue Oct 14 2008 ZC Miao <hellwolf.org> - 0.9.6-0.2 - Change to correct license - Requires GConf2 in pre/post/preun - permission of docs shoud be 644 - summary without dot f9 mock built successfully.
[*] OK [x] Fail (see comment) [o] Not Applicable [?] Questions [*] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Clean 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Release: 0.2 should be Release: 2%{dist} to conform with package naming guidelines found here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines < [*] 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. [x] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. When errors are fixed it will meet 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. Source0 still lacks a valid download URL "Source0: This must be working upstream source tarball download link." Exceptions to this rule can found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL < Please comment here your valid exception for not providing a full link. [*] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Package successful mock build on F-9 and Rawhide (i386) and run on F-9 [o] 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. 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: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the 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. [o] 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.An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /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: 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. Some inconsistencies in the use of the %{name} macro. But in this case some may consider using macros in all instances overkill. [*] 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. [o] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [o] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [o] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [o] 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. [o] 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 the 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} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. [*] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Updated SPEC: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg.spec SRPM: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg-0.9.6-1.src.rpm Archive has been released: http://www.ipmsg.org/index.html.en http://www.ipmsg.org/archive/g2ipmsg-0.9.6.tar.gz
Sorry, still had problem, new fixes: SPEC: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg.spec SRPM: http://linuxfire.com.cn/~hellwolf/software/g2ipmsg/g2ipmsg-0.9.6-2.fc9.src.rpm ChangeLog: * Tue Oct 28 2008 ZC Miao <hellwolf.misty> - 0.9.6-2 - Fix Release TAG - add Source url reference
rpmlint: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Everything looks good. Successful build on F9 and Rawhide (i386)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: g2ipmsg Short Description: IP Messenger for GNOME 2 Owners: hellwolf Branches: F-9 InitialCC: hellwolf
The Review Request title here has "g2ipmsg2" is that a typo and it should be "g2ipmsg" ?
Oops, the title should be a typo
Thanks for fixing that. cvs done.