http://people.apache.org/~tross/rhm-examples-0.2.656926-6.fc9.src.rpm Source code examples for RHM
rhm-examples-0.2.656926-6.fc9.src.rpm MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) NA - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease NA - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} NO * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah - paths for checkout are incorrect, missing a "qpid" after "trunk" OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc NA * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there $rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/rhm-examples-0.2.656926-6.fc10.src.rpm rhm-examples.src: W: invalid-license LGPL (LGPL is an acceptable license) OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. [...] OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs NO * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - there are a number of warnings, such as spurious-executable-perm and doc-file-dependency SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock
The following link references a package that addresses the above issues. It is rebased to same version as the qpidc package. http://people.apache.org/~tross/rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.src.rpm
* paths for checkout are incorrect, missing a "qpid" after "trunk" -> fixed *- sources verified: $ md5sum rhm-examples-0.2.693548.tar.gz 218d3e0f8bde3dbe611486f3054fc36c rhm-examples-0.2.693548.tar.gz * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ sudo mock rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 0.9.9 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start INFO: Start(rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.src.rpm) Config(fedora-rawhide-i386) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.src.rpm) Config(default) 0 minutes 19 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result/rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.noarch.rpm rhm-examples.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (LGPL is an acceptable license) Looks good now, I'm marking as fedora-review+
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rhm-examples Short Description: Source code examples for RHM Owners: tross nsantos Branches: InitialCC:
Hi Ted, It seems you are not in the packager group, You will need to be sponsored. I am setting the sponsor flag, I apologize if i am wrong.
Any news here? Feel free to email or catch me on irc if you need any assistance with the process of being sponsored. I am clearing the cvs flag here, feel free to reset it when you are ready.
(In reply to comment #3) > $ rpmlint > /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result/rhm-examples-0.2.693548-1.fc10.noarch.rpm > rhm-examples.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > (LGPL is an acceptable license) The acceptable LGPL license tags for fedora are available in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and summarized: LGPLv2+ LGPLv2 LGPLv2 with exceptions LGPLv2+ LGPLv2+ with exceptions LGPLv3 LGPLv3 with exceptions LGPLv3+ LGPLv3+ with exceptions so if the above guideline is correct, LGPL is not a suitable value for this tag. There is some notes that describe what the tag should be.
No longer relevant