This is my first package and I need a sponsor. Spec URL: http://squeak-fedora.googlecode.com/files/squeak-vm.spec SRPM URL: http://squeak-fedora.googlecode.com/files/squeak-vm-3.10.4-3.fc10.src.rpm Description: Squeak is a full-featured implementation of the Smalltalk programming language and environment based on (and largely compatible with) the original Smalltalk-80 system.
I've run rpmlint on the spec file, the SRPM, and the i386 and x86_64 rpms, no errors, these are the only warnings: squeak-vm.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/squeak/3.10-4/SqueakV3.sources ../../../..//usr/share/squeak/SqueakV3.sources squeak-vm.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/squeak/3.10-4/SqueakV39.sources ../../../..//usr/share/squeak/SqueakV39.sources These links point to files in the squeak-image package, to be submitted for review as soon as I finish this review. These files are arch independent, as is all of squeak-image, except that for historical reasons squeak-image requires these packages to be in this arch dependent (under /usr/lib/) place. rpmlint, rightfully, doesn't like arch dependent files in a noarch package, so putting the files in an arch independent place (under /usr/share) in squeak-image, and haveing links to them from /usr/lib (or /usr/lib64) in squeak-vm (which is arch dependent). squeak-vm-nonXOplugins.i386: W: no-documentation This is a sub-package that is dependent on it's super-package and the super-package has doc. squeak-vm-nonXOplugins.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/squeak/3.10-4/SqueakFFIPrims Yes, it does have an executable-stack, it must.
I've sent a note about this package (and related packages) to fedora-packaging, subject "Squeak and Etoys packages". BZ481066 is related to this.
BZ481064 is also related.
BTW there was a closed ticket with attempt to submit this package already. I thought there are some license issues - are they resolved (if any).
(In reply to comment #4) > BTW there was a closed ticket with attempt to submit this package already. I > thought there are some license issues - are they resolved (if any). Yes, there were licensing issues, they have been resolved.
I added FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker tag, as Gavin said he need a sponsor.
(In reply to comment #6) > I added FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker tag, as Gavin said he need a sponsor. Woops! I misunderstood the instructions in PackageMaintainers/Join. While this is the first package I've submitted to Fedora for review, I am already a member of the 'packagers' group because I'm an upstream maintainer for some packages, so I don't need to be sponsored again.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Symlink warnings but OK based on explanation - 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 on Package Naming Guidelines . 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. OK. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). 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. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 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. OK. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig OK - 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. NA. - 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. OK. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. 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, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines . OK. - MUST: Large documentation files should 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) NA. - 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. NA. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA. - 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. NA. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} NA. - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK. - 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines . 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK. - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK. Approved
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: squeak-vm Short Description: Squeak is an implementation of the Smalltalk Owners: gavin Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: gavin
cvs done.
Ping. What's the status of this ticket? Why squeak-vm was not rebuilt?
(In reply to comment #11) > Ping. What's the status of this ticket? Why squeak-vm was not rebuilt? This package was built, and is now part of rawhide. Was there some need to rebuild it again that I missed or was unaware of? As far as status of this ticket: the package was approved, checked into cvs, and built into rawhide; but I don't know what if anything should happen with this ticket. I don't see any directions for this in the wiki. If I've made a mistake here I apologise. Please let me know what needs doing and I'll get it done.
Yes, maybe squeak-vm was built for devel - I don't watch the status of packages in Rawhide. But there are branches for F-9 and F-10, and the package still not built for these branches. For example, at F-10 we got the following: [petro@host-12-116 ~]$ yum info squeak-vm --enablerepo updates-testing Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Error: No matching Packages to list [petro@host-12-116 ~]$ You should build packages for these branches and push them into updates-testing/updates using Bodhi.
I have built, tested, and pushed this package into Bodhi for both f10 and f9. Please test, comment, and karma++/-- as appropriate.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: squeak-vm New Branches: EL-6 Owners: pbrobinson sdz
Have you checked with gavin to see if they would like to maintain in epel?