Spec URL: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl.spec SRPM URL: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: OTL C++ database library/wrapper for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2.
I'll review it.
Notes: * You forgot to add %prep section to your spec-file (where rpmbuild should unzip sources). Please add %prep %setup -q -c This means that rpmbuild will create default directory in BUILD (%{name}-%{version}), cd into it and will quietly unzip %{SOURCE0} * Add empty %build section (just to make rpmlint happy) * You should use mighty power of 'install' command instead of creating directory my hands :). E.g. instead of mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/otl cp -a otlv4.h $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/otl you may use install -D -p -m 644 otlv4.h $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_includedir}/%{name}/otlv4.h * Please split %description in shorter lines (to silent rpmlint): otl.src: E: description-line-too-long OTL 4.0 was designed as a combination of a C++ template framework and OTL-adapters. otl.src: E: description-line-too-long The framework is a generic implementation of the concept of OTL streams. The OTL-adapters otl.src: E: description-line-too-long are thin wrappers around the database APIs and are used as class type parameters Other things looks sane.
Ok, fixed above: http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel.spec http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-3.fc9.src.rpm
Few additional remarks: * Add newline between %setup and %build (just cosmetic) * About renaming to otl-devel - although it's not a blocker I advise you to rename it back to otl. First, if some Fedora user will decide to play with otl, his first attempt will be "yum install otl". E.g. I strongly vote against naming of packages which differs from upstream ones w/o reasons. I can't find any reasons in your case. However some packages does prefer your current naming scheme. If you'll finally decide to stay with otl-devel, you should add "Provides: otl" to your spec-file. Please consider these two advices (of course, you may reject both - they're not a blocker issues) and I'll make a review.
Ok, I fixed these last two issues http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel.spec http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.src.rpm
REVIEW: + rpmlint is (almost) silent: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.noarch.rpm otl-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/otl-devel-4.0.176-4.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum otlv4_h.zip* 16b07c774b737bd9fa0d8e0d3a569c67 otlv4_h.zip 16b07c774b737bd9fa0d8e0d3a569c67 otlv4_h.zip.from_srpm [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + No additional build dependencies + No need to handle locales + Does not contain shared library files + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Does not contain large documentation files + Does not contain %doc files + Header files are in a -devel package. + Does not contain static libraries + Does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files + Does not contain library files with a suffix + Does not contain any .la libtool archives + No a GUI application + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED.
(removing NEEDSPONSOR)
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: otl Short Description: OTL is a C++ template library for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2/CLI connectivity Owners: hjames Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: mtasaka lemenkov
What is the package name here? I see otl in the request, but the reviewed package was otl-devel? I don't see why it would be otl-devel if upstream is named otl... can you explain?
This package is just for development of the OTL library. http://otl.sourceforge.net. It was suggested that since it was a header only project that it would be more appropriate to name the package otl-devel, however I don't have any strong feelings either way, what do you think is the correct way?
Well, the upstream project is "otl" so I would call it that here as well. Do other linux distros ship it as otl-devel? Is it better known by that name?
I renamed the package to otl http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl-4.0.176-5.fc9.src.rpm http://hayden.doesntexist.com/~hjames/otl.spec There are no other changes. So I would like to go ahead with the cvs request: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: otl Short Description: OTL is a C++ template library for Oracle/OCI, ODBC, and DB2/CLI connectivity Owners: hjames Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: mtasaka lemenkov Thanks.
cvs done with the exception that user lemenkov doesn't seem to exist. ;(
otl-4.0.176-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/otl-4.0.176-5.fc9
otl-4.0.176-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/otl-4.0.176-5.fc10
otl-4.0.176-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
otl-4.0.176-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.