Description of problem: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/specs/bashdb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/bashdb-4.0_0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm The Bash Debugger Project is a source-code debugger for bash, which follows the gdb command syntax. The purpose of the BASH debugger is to check what is going on “inside” a bash script, while it executes: * Start a script, specifying conditions that might affect its behaviour. * Stop a script at certain conditions (break points). * Examine the state of a script. * Experiment, by changing variable values on the fly. The version 4.0 series is a complete rewrite of the previous series. Bashdb can be used with ddd: ddd --debugger /usr/bin/bashdb <script-name>. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
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: bashdb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bashdb/getopts_long.sh 0644 => this one is ignorable, the script is to be used from inside bashdb emacs-bashdb.noarch: W: no-documentation => ignorable [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 specified by sources: GPLv2+ License type as specified by spec: GPLv2 => unless I am mistaken, please fix the spec [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 match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 9a4da7ff53cbb072140b1584385bf87eff26c824 bashdb-4.0-0.2.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 %{buildroot}. [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. [x] Final provides and requires are sane. === 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 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [x] Package functions as described. Ttested in F10/x86_64 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [x] File based requires are sane. [x] %check is present and the test passes. === Issues === 1. Please fix the license tag before commit === Notes === 1. I would add INSTALL="install -p" to the make install line ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
(In reply to comment #1) > 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: > bashdb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bashdb/getopts_long.sh 0644 > => this one is ignorable, the script is to be used from inside bashdb > emacs-bashdb.noarch: W: no-documentation > => ignorable > [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 specified by sources: GPLv2+ > License type as specified by spec: GPLv2 > => unless I am mistaken, please fix the spec > [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 match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > SHA1SUM of package: 9a4da7ff53cbb072140b1584385bf87eff26c824 > bashdb-4.0-0.2.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 %{buildroot}. > [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. > [x] Final provides and requires are sane. > > === 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 > [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > Tested on: > [x] Package functions as described. > Ttested in F10/x86_64 > [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. > [x] File based requires are sane. > [x] %check is present and the test passes. > > > === Issues === > 1. Please fix the license tag before commit Changed to GPLv2+ > > === Notes === > 1. I would add INSTALL="install -p" to the make install line Done. I also added a "check" section. %install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %{__rm} -f "%{buildroot}%{_infodir}/dir" %check make check Thanks.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bashdb Short Description: BASH debugger, the BASH symbolic debugger Owners: roma Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11(devel)
cvs done.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: bashdb New Branches: el6 el7 Owners: roma InitialCC: roma
Git done (by process-git-requests).