SRPM URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/supybot-fedora-0.2-2.fc9.src.rpm Spec URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/supybot-fedora.spec Description: A Supybot plugin which provides access to Fedora information. Implements a variety of commands, such as: * fas * fasinfo * ext * bug * whoowns These provide various information from the Fedora Package Database and Account System and provide it via IRC
I would approve this because it seems perfectly fine, but since I *am* upstream I think another set of eyes would be the proper way to do things here. Sorry, Jon ;)
there are several tiny problems: - the correct Source0 is https://fedorahosted.org/releases/s/u/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2https://fedorahosted.org/releases/s/u/%name/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 - the spec file name as included in the src.rpm should be supybot-fedora, not supybot-koji - %install lacks rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Otherwise things seem pretty much OK, please come back with a correct src.rpm and I'll do a full review PS: is BR python-devel really needed? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python claims BR: python is enough
obviously correct Source0 should have read https://fedorahosted.org/releases/s/u/%name/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Yeah, I think just python works fine. python-devel was in the template that rpmdev-newspec gave me, so I just kept it. Why would %install clean out the buildroot, %clean is for that, no? :) I was packaging both plugins at the same time and might have had directory confusion, accounting for the wrong spec in the SRPM :( All fixed now, same spec, http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/supybot-fedora-0.2-3.fc9.src.rpm for the SRPM
Oops, sorry about the %install comment, was thinking about the wrong end of the build process there :) Fixed in the SRPM above.
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. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type as specidied by spec:BSD with advertising License type from source: New BSD (no advertising, 3 clause) ==> I might be wrong here but http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD seems closer to the license in the source file [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 do not match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM : 526dd710f7c130808798474873b1621b6bd29ff9 supybot-fedora-0.2.tar.bz2 [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 $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. === 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 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on:package is noarch, should work on any arch with a proper python [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Note === Please recheck the license before doing the commit. I think that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD is the correct one to be used in the spec and not http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#BSDwithAdvertising APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: supybot-fedora Short Description: Supybot plugin to interact with Fedora services Owners: jstanley Branches: EL-5 F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
supybot-fedora-0.2-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/supybot-fedora-0.2-4.fc9
supybot-fedora-0.2-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: supybot-fedora New Branches: epel7 Owners: kevin InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).