Spec URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin-0.1-1.svn5357.fc11.noarch.rpm Description: This plugin allows users to set watches on wiki pages and tickets in Trac. It currently only works with trac 0.11.
It seems to me that this is a pre-release snapshot, because there seems to be no upstream release of version 0.1 of this package. Then the RPM release tag has to follow this schema: 0.%{X}.%{alphatag} Which is in this case: 0.1.svn%{svn_rev}%{?dist} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Upstream is really bad about versioned releases for trac plugins. But I see your point, I was following the post-release snapshot guidelines, assuming that the first version ever published was the 0.1 "release". A "release" per se is unlikely to ever occur for this package, so it will be forever a pre-release I guess. New spec: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin.spec New SRPM: http://jstanley.fedorapeople.org/trac-watchlist-plugin-0.1-0.2.svn5357.fc10.src.rpm
Oh, and the 0.1 version came from setup.py - I didn't just pull it from mid-air :)
[OK] rpmlint output: trac-watchlist-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed: BSD [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: not in upstream tarball/SCM [OK] package is code or permissive content: {OK} patches sent to upstream and commented: no patches [GOOD ENOUGH] Source0 is a working URL Tarball generation instructions work {N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net <OK> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: indidual files in tarball match locally generated tarball [OK] Package builds on all primary architectures: noarch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311889 [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] Follows desktop entry spec [N/A] Valid .desktop Name [N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName [N/A] Valid .desktop Categories [N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {N/A} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {OK} no rpath {GOOD ENOUGH} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines {OK} Has BuildRequires: python {NOT OK} Defines and uses %{python_sitelib}: %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} you should use %global instead of %define [OK] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from upstream into the proper directory. [OK] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [OK] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be included in the package. [N/A] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [N/A] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. (OK) A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. {OK} Egg install: %install %{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Please change the two occurences of %define to %global before importing the package into Fedora. Except for this minor issue the package looks good and is therefore APPROVED.
You need to create a CVS admin request to proceed, and don't forget to change the %define to %global.
Oops, looks like I completely forgot about this - sorry about that! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: trac-watchlist-plugin Short Description: A trac plugin for watching wiki Owners: jstanley Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
(In reply to comment #6) > Oops, looks like I completely forgot about this - sorry about that! It seems this happened again.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-5335/trac-watchlist-plugin-0.5-0.2.svn11062.el6 I don't know if Fedora branches/updates are needed/wanted.
It has been built for Fedora 17 and 18, therefore I do not see any value in keeping this bug open.