Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.02-1.f8.src.rpm Description: The refmac ligand dictionaries contain chemical information on a large number of molecules, including the chemical structure of the ligand, the tree-like structure, the links between ligands, and possible modifications to them. This information is stored in the mmCIF format, which is used by a number of molecular viewing, refinement and validation tools. Also see: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~garib/refmac/latest_refmac.html
suggestions 1) rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and for RPM. refmac-dictionary.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog refmac-dictionary.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ==> missing version from changelog. Follow guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs 2) Don't mix macros follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Macros either use %{buildroot} OR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
(In reply to comment #1) > suggestions > 1) rpmlint is NOT silent for SRPM and for RPM. > refmac-dictionary.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog > refmac-dictionary.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog > ==> missing version from changelog. Follow guidelines > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Changelogs > Oops, fixed. > 2) Don't mix macros follow > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Macros > either use %{buildroot} OR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Fixed. Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.02-2.f8.src.rpm
Can you indicate where you see a statement that this package is under LGPLv3? All I see is the COPYING file, which has the usual language indicating that any LGPL version applies unless there is some indication of a specific choice of version. This would indicate LGPLv2+ (since there was no LGPLv1). In case you don't know and don't like typing, you can write BuildArchitectures: as just BuildArch:. Is there any reason to have the "data" directory, instead of just putting the monomers directly into %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}? It just seems a bit odd to have two successive directories with nothing in them except for another directory.
(In reply to comment #3) > Can you indicate where you see a statement that this package is under LGPLv3? > All I see is the COPYING file, which has the usual language indicating that any > LGPL version applies unless there is some indication of a specific choice of > version. This would indicate LGPLv2+ (since there was no LGPLv1). > Sorry, I assumed LGPLv3 since it says "version 3" at the top of the copying file, and appears to be an exact copy of: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.txt > > Is there any reason to have the "data" directory, instead of just putting the > monomers directly into %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}? It just seems a bit odd > to have two successive directories with nothing in them except for another > directory. Right - the only reason for that is most programs that access the data assume the files are under datadir/data/monomers/ - I can simply make a symbolic link instead, though, if that would be more appropriate.
Sure, it says version 3, but it pays to actually read the license. See section 6: " If the Library as you received it does not specify a version number of the GNU Lesser General Public License, you may choose any version of the GNU Lesser General Public License ever published by the Free Software Foundation. " Our licensing page also covers this: " A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include. " http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing There's no need for a symlink; if other programs expect to see it there then there's no problem.
(In reply to comment #5) > > Our licensing page also covers this: > > " > A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that > it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is > technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the > version in whatever COPYING file they include. > " > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > Sorry, I didn't realize this. Changed to LGPLv2+ for now (and I'll talk with upstream about including a specific statement as to which version they intended). Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.02-3.f8.src.rpm
update to 5.04: Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.04-1.f10.src.rpm
The above srpm URL is invalid, but I poked around in the directory and found it. Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Note that the leading blank line in your %description makes it into the final output, which probably isn't what you want. That's really minor, and I can find nothing worth complaining about. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 803b7669e09124012db110da71fa8dfdf64ea53c92b4021fbaba3e5638aea00b refmac_dictionary_v5.04.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: refmac-dictionary = 5.04-1.fc11 = (nothing) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * acceptable content. APPROVED The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.
(In reply to comment #8) > The above srpm URL is invalid, but I poked around in the directory and found > it. Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. > Oops, sorry! > Note that the leading blank line in your %description makes it into the final > output, which probably isn't what you want. That's really minor, and I can > find nothing worth complaining about. > I fixed it anyway: Spec URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~fenn/packs/refmac-dictionary-5.04-2.fc10.src.rpm > > The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package > reviews recently, please consider doing one. I'll try - now that I'm more familiar with the process, I'm a little more confident in knowing what to look for.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: refmac-dictionary Short Description: chemical ligand dictionary Owners: timfenn Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: timfenn
cvs done.
commits/tags/builds done, submitted to bodhi as newpackage.
This seems to have been pushed out now; I'll go ahead and close the ticket.