Spec URL: http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo.spec SRPM URL: http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo-0.1.20-1.src.rpm Description: Todo is a program to display and manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding work, or just reminders. The program itself is assisted by a few shell scripts that override default builtins. Specifically, cd, pushd and popd are overridden so that when using one of these commands to enter a directory, the todo will display any outstanding items in that directory. For much more complete information please refer to the man page (devtodo(1)).
Some remarks: rpmlint devtodo.spec: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-1.src.rpm: devtodo.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders. devtodo.src: E: summary-too-long Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders. devtodo.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. --> Please shorten the summary and suppressed the final "." --> You also have to version changelog comments. --> Release should end with "%{?dist}" rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-1.i386.rpm devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/scripts.tcsh devtodo.i386: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/profile.d devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/scripts.sh devtodo.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders. devtodo.i386: E: summary-too-long Manage a hierarchical, prioritised list of outstanding tasks, jobs, or just reminders. devtodo.i386: W: no-version-in-last-changelog devtodo.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/todorc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. --> /etc/profile.d is owned by package setup, so you should not mention "%dir %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d" in you package files list. --> Please use "%config(noreplace) for file %{_sysconfdir}/todorc, or explain why you don't use it. --> The name "scripts.sh" and "scripts.tcsh" are too "impersonal" in system-wide directory %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d: i.e. change them to "devtodo.sh" and "devtodo.csh". Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1006248 --> %doc: _ INSTALL should not be packaged. _ %{_mandir}/... should be outside of %doc _ %{_mandir}/... explicit names should be avoided since compression (thus name extension) is achieved by the rpmbuild macros. Use "%{_mandir}/man1/*". License: Should probably be GPLv2, not GPLv2+: GPL v2 license is contained in the tarball, but no source file (except those generated by the autotools) menti on it. I cannot find any note saying "GPL2 or later"...
*** Bug 477152 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry for the low quality, it's an old spec file, and I also ignored that running rpmlint on the spec file produces fewer warnings. All points have been addressed in this new release: Spec URL: http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo.spec SRPM URL: http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo-0.1.20-2.src.rpm
SRPM link above is lame. You probably meant http://codewiz.org/pub/fedora/pkgs/devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc10.src.rpm rpmlint devtodo.spec: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint devtodo-0.1.20-2.fc11.i386.rpm devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/devtodo.sh devtodo.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/devtodo.tcsh devtodo.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.20-1 ['0.1.20-2.fc11', '0.1.20-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. --> Consider %config(noreplace) for %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d scripts. This will allow customization and make rpmlint silent. --> %changelog comment versioning still not OK ! %{buildroot}/etc/profile.d --> %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d (3 times) Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1009624 _ Please comment your "buildfixes" patch. _ Consider also using option -p when installing scripts to preserve their mtime. OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK source files match upstream: sha1: 003067a12139d712dbb3706069e0950a93ecaaf4 devtodo-0.1.20.tar.gz md5: 4a6241437cb56f237f850bcd2233c3c4 devtodo-0.1.20.tar.gz OK summary is OK. OK description is OK. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is OK. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate (unchanged). OK %clean is present. -- The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines (changelog version) OK package builds in Koji (rawhide). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. -- rpmlint is not silent (see above). OK final provides and requires are sane: devtodo = 0.1.20-2.fc11 devtodo(x86-32) = 0.1.20-2.fc11 = libc.so.6() libgcc_s.so.1() libm.so.6 libncurses.so.5 libreadline.so.5 libstdc++.so.6() libtinfo.so.5 OK %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I was able to run programs from the command line and manage todo lists. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no static libraries. OK no libtool .la files. This is my first review !!! I hope I've seen everything and I'm not too severe :-)
> License: Should probably be GPLv2, not GPLv2+: GPL v2 license is contained in > the tarball, but no source file (except those generated by the autotools) > mention it. I cannot find any note saying "GPL2 or later"... I believe the License field should state "GPLv2", but from different reason :). W.r.t the text from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses "" 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. """ The content of the COPYING file is not that important compared to what is stated in src files and docs. And frankly the only statement of exact license is in doc/devtodo.1.in .\" todo is licensed under the GPL, version 2. A copy of the GPL should have been distributed with the source in the file COPYING The pkg looks good to me, it's pretty similar to the one I did in now closed bug 477152.
Thanks for the review. Here's an updated spec with all the comments addressed: http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/specs/devtodo.spec http://www.codewiz.org/pub/fedora/source/devtodo-0.1.20-3.fc10.src.rpm
Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1015833 rpmlint silent Review accepted
Ping ? Package has passed review successfully (comment #7). Bernie, do you still plan to import this package in Fedora ?
(In reply to comment #8) > Ping ? > Package has passed review successfully (comment #7). > Bernie, do you still plan to import this package in Fedora ? Sorry, I hadn't noticed your comment in my bugmail, and eventually totally forgot about this package. Requesting CVS now.
Please add a cvs request template here so we know what you want. Reset the fedora-cvs flag when you are ready.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: devtodo Short Description: Manage a hierarchical, prioritized list of outstanding tasks Owners: bernie Branches: F-11 InitialCC: bernie
cvs done.
Thanks! Package imported, package built for devel. Building for F-11 shortly.