Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://znark.com/fedora/zsync.spec SRPM URL: http://znark.com/fedora/zsync-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: zsync is a file transfer program. It allows you to download a file from a remote web server, where you have a copy of an older version of the file on your computer already. zsync downloads only the new parts of the file. It uses the same algorithm as rsync.
Only minor issue I see: rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-9-i386/result/*rpm zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README Can be fixed with iconv Otherwise builds and runs well for me on fedora 9 and rawhide.
Hello again, I'm doing a preview. This is not a full review, as I am not sponsored yet, but it should help get it in shape. FIX - MUST: rpmlint, zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README OK - MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: package %{name} matches spec in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: Packaging guidlines, zlib is in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries OK - MUST: Fedora approved license FIX - MUST: The License field must match the actual license. It looks like they're actually using Artistic 2.0 OK - MUST: package includes the text of the license(s) in in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: Spec file is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK - MUST: No excludes needed FIX - MUST: Dependencies, add zlib to BuildRequires when you patch it to not use the one in the source OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros OK - MUST: The package contains code OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files in %doc don't affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives ( once zlib is gone ) OK - MUST: Console app, no .desktop needed OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package compiles on all arch OK - SHOULD: Package runs as described So it still needs a little work. Action items: - Can you please check out the license and confirm that it is indeed artistic 2.0? - The one warning on rpmlint as mentioned before - You would have to take care of the zlib situation to get this to pass review Hope this helps! Once again, not a full review.
@ Debarshi: Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind. @ John: Sorry I missed your review because you CC'ed me after you did it. Most things look good so far, nevertheless here is a complete re-review. Here we co REVIEW FOR 180523f1a837f61076563cef5929f72d zsync-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm FIX - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/zsync-* zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Although this is minor please fix with iconv as John said in comment #1 OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines - the package builds against the zlib in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries - The timestamp of the source is no preserved, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - NEWS is missing from %doc OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (Artistic License v2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. Should be "Artistic 2.0+" instead of "Artistic clarified" (+ comes from the "or any later version..."-statement in the headers of the sources) OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file, and it is included in %doc OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by md5sum 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 OK - MUST: The package has no known ExcludeArches OK - MUST: No build dependencies except for those from the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: No locales that need to be handled with %find_lang OK - MUST: No shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, no need to call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (only %{_docdir}/zsync-0.5) OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly, %files section includes a %defattr(...) line OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT FIX - MUST: The package does not consistently use macros. Use http://zsync.moria.org.uk/download/zsync-%{version}.tar.bz2 as SourceURL because then you only need to change the version tag on updates OK - MUST: The package contains code, no permissable content OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: No header files that need to be in a -devel package OK - MUST: No static libraries that need a -static package OK - MUST: Packages does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files must, no need to require pkgconfig OK - MUST: The Package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: No GUI application, no need for a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are be valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described OK - SHOULD: The package contains the latest stable release of the application NEEWSWORK Please fix all issued and then I will approve the package.
(In reply to comment #3) > @ Debarshi: > Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review > for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind. No problem. I got a bit busy with fixing some of my packages before the freeze deadline, so it is good that you took it. :-)
Ian, is there anything we can do for you to get this review going again?
*** Bug 478617 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hopefully Ian will react soon, otherwise we might as well close this bug and reopen #478617
Closing this bug now in favor of bug # 478617 because Fabian still wants to maintain the package. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 478617 ***