Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/cwirc.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/cwirc-2.0.0-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: CWIRC is an X Chat plugin that allows the user to send and receive Morse Code (CW) over IRC. Active CWIRC on IRC channels include #CW on irc.freenode.net. Requires XChat 2.0 or higher to use. When installed a user button is added to X Chat to allow activation/deactivation of the plugin. This is my first submission for review sponsorship is needed. Sponsor Needed = Yes rpmlint = Pass RPM Build = Pass Mock Build = Pass
rpmlint is not silent: the src.rpm: [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ rpmlint cwirc-2.0.0-2.fc9.src.rpm cwirc.src: W: non-standard-group Applications/Communication cwirc.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cwirc.src: W: no-url-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. the binary: [wolfy@wolfy tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//epel-5-x86_64/result/cwirc-2.0.0-2.el5.x86_64.rpm cwirc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/cwirc-2.0.0/LISEZMOI cwirc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Applications/Communication cwirc.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog cwirc.x86_64: W: no-url-tag cwirc.x86_64: W: empty-%post cwirc.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Please also make sure that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags is respected. The current spec always uses "-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -DLINUX -fPIC -c " On the plus side, it loads and seems to run on Centos 5/x86_64.
Fixed rpmlint issues Currently working on: "The current spec always uses "-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -DLINUX -fPIC -c "
Added patch to fix breakage when applying CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to spec rpmlint = pass rpm build = pass mock build = pass
Please bump the release tag and list here the URL of the new spec + src.rpm each time you modify the spec. This makes tracking versions easier for everyone Your idea to use a general function plus a loop to convert the french documentation to UTF-8 is nice. But replacing two lines of code with a 6 lines function + a 3 line loop hardly can be seen as an economy :) Anyway, please use iconv -f "$2" -t utf-8 < "$1" > "${1}_" touch -R "$1" "${1}_" mv -f "${1}_" "$1" thus preserving the timestamp of the original file. We still have one problem: the debuginfo that is generated is empty. I am also certain that the culprit are the two "strip " lines from the end of the build: gcc -shared -lm -o cwirc.so plugin.shared.o ipc.shared.o grid.shared.o propagation.shared.o cwframe.shared.o strip cwirc.so gcc -lm `pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0` -o cwirc_frontend frontend.o io.o gui.o ipc.o keyer.o grid.o propagation .o cwsound.o cwdecoder.o cwframe.o rcfile.o extension.o strip cwirc_frontend + exit 0
Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/cwirc.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/cwirc-2.0.0-4.fc9.src.rpm Fixed release numbers in spec file, uploaded new version to reflect release number, added patch to remove STRIP to generate debug file, changed LISEZMOI document to UTF-8 while preserving original date. rpmlint = pass rpmbuild = pass mock build = pass
Everything seems OK now. As potential sponsor, now I would like to see either some other packages submitted by you to Fedora or some pre-reviews done by you for packages submitted for Fedora. You can use https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&component=Package%20Review&bug_status=NEW to locate the submissions in need of review.
Randall, can we see anything else that you have done related to Fedora Packaging ?
3 reviews so far: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445970 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458402 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459924 1 reviewed and approved package that I am currently trying to get to work on 64 bit but so far have been unsuccessful. Koji won't build it on 64 bit. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464441 Sponsor no longer needed.
Confirmed, said his sponsor.
heh, I was waiting for input in order to sponsor Randall :) 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/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM: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 [x] 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 match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 9cc6426b3f3d7cddf8961151c01722b6360b01e5 cwirc-2.0.0.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [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. [x] 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. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === 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/x86_64 / F7/x86_64 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [x] Package functions as described (on F7/x86_64) [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [x] %check is present and the test passes. ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
Thanks Wolfy! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cwirc Short Description: An xchat plugin for sending and receiving morse code over IRC Owners: dp67 Branches: F-9, F-10, devel InitialCC: dp67
cvs done. No need to set owner to initialcc, they already get the emails. ;)
Submitted for testing on F10
Koji build pages F-9 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=78134 F-10 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77826 Devel http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77823
Pushed to updates-testing
Pushed to stable F9/10/devel