Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal-1.2-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://frankpena.googlepages.com/bournal.html Description: Bournal is a bash script that allows you to keep a personal, minimalistic, password-protected journal, log, or diary. It includes encryption, regexp searches, and a date-sorted list for editing old entries. Since Bournal is pure bash, it should be easily editable for the CLI-savvy. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1069895 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop024 noarch]$ rpmlint bournal-1.2-1.fc9.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint bournal-1.2-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
what a fortuitousness, all packages i want to package is already packed by fab :-p version 1.3 is available vim vs. nano mh, perhaps you should choose one, and add in the description that it will be worked with the other.. but its a console editor, so this will not be an issue. please update to v. 1.3 and i will take a deeper look and review it.
I will ask upstream what they are thinking of using a makefile to place the files. Since 1.2 there are a lot icon files...
So far no update from upstream. Here are the updated file: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal-1.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
-------REVIEW BOURNAL------- template: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines -------------- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK rpmlint clean -------------- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK -------------- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK -------------- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK -------------- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK -------------- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK -------------- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. N/A -------------- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK -------------- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK -------------- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK Package 3b15bd7fe8f33ac03c4fd0699551fc69 my DL 3b15bd7fe8f33ac03c4fd0699551fc69 -------------- MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK -------------- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK -------------- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK -------------- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A -------------- MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A -------------- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK -------------- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK -------------- MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK -------------- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK -------------- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK -------------- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK -------------- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK -------------- MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). N/A -------------- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK -------------- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A -------------- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A -------------- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A -------------- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A -------------- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A -------------- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. N/A -------------- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK -------------- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK -------------- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK -------------- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK -------------- SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK -------------- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. N/A -------------- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK -------------- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK -------------- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. N/A -------------- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A -------------- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A -------------- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb N/A -------------- SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. N/A ========== APPROVED ==========
(In reply to comment #4) > -------REVIEW BOURNAL------- It would ne bice to know which file was actually reviewed, because the spec above mentions 1.3-2, but the srpm is 1.3-1. The only thing that is different so the release, the rest of the spec is the same. Group "Applications/Internet" seems wrong to me, I'd rather use "Applications/Productivity" or "Applications/Text" > -------------- > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. > OK FAIL. The package owns %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/, which it shouldn't, because it belongs to hicolor-icon-theme already is a requirement of this package.
Also: - This rpm must update GTK icon cache: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache ? By the way, is this a GUI application? If not (i.e. if this is CUI application), installing destop files or hicolor icons is not needed.
========= REVOKED ========= the SRPM, i never take a look in the single SPEC-file mh, I'm in the shit. I didn't see the missing Icon-Cache and the incorrect ownage. The desktop file and the icon stuff is not needed and there are dependencies in the X. I have a CUI package with a desktop file, too.. So this wasn't a problem for me. Another thing is that the main dependency ccrypt is not available for ppc64. --- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. FAIL! --- Group: yeah, you are right again. I'm awfully sorry for making such a trouble...
What is the status of this bug?
This package depends on ccrypt. But the implemented tests of this package fails on i386 and upstream is no answering. At the moment I see no solution to bring bournel in Fedora with ccrypt.
ccrypt was approved. Time to pick this up again.
* Sun Aug 02 2009 Fabian Affolter <fabian> - 1.3-2 - Removed all icons and desktop stuff Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/bournal-1.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
mh, okay, just an installation of a script, you removed the parts which causes issues. the parts that survived are okay, (see above).. ========== APPROVED ========== Fabian, sorry for my late response.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bournal Short Description: Write personal, password-protected journal entries Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
bournal-1.3-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bournal-1.3-2.fc10
bournal-1.3-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bournal-1.3-2.fc11
bournal-1.3-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bournal'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10023
bournal-1.3-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update bournal'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10058
bournal-1.3-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
bournal-1.3-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.