SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/skyviewer.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/skyviewer-1.0.0-1.fc11.src.rpm SkyViewer is an OpenGL based program to display HEALPix-based skymaps, saved in FITS format files. The loaded skymaps can be viewed either on a 3D sphere or as a Mollweide projection. In either case, realtime panning and zooming are supported, along with rotations for the 3D sphere view, assuming you have a strong enough graphics card.
- Don't use macros for cat or rm. (Macro for python is in the python guideline for some reason.) - Don't use filelist. - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) - Remove empty %post and %postun sections. - Change BuildRequires: python, python-devel, python-setuptools to BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel (BR python is redundant, since python-devel already pulls that in. If you BR python-setuptools-devel, then it pulls setuptools and python-devel automatically.) Also, you don't even need python-setuptools unless you want to build for EPEL.
Damn, wrong tab; meant for bug 492979. I must be daydreaming. Sorry. :) Well, I might as well review this package as it's related to healpix.
rpmlint output: skyviewer.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/skyviewer-1.0.0/test_iqu.fits 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. No problem with this one. - You didn't try to build in mock, did you? Missing BRs: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils BuildRequires: libQGLViewer-devel BuildRequires: qt4-devel After this builds fine. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX - There is no license file included, or any license mentioned in the source code or the homepage. Must get license information from upstream before the package can be approved. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX - Add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSFIX (Missing BRs mentioned above.)
Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please have a look if you can get it to build.
Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #3) > - You didn't try to build in mock, did you? Missing BRs: > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils > BuildRequires: libQGLViewer-devel > BuildRequires: qt4-devel Nope, dependencies weren't in yet, and I did not bother constructing repositories. Thanks for that. Will fix. (Will reroll the package once the license is settled) > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines. NEEDSFIX > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > NEEDSFIX > - There is no license file included, or any license mentioned in the source > code or the homepage. Must get license information from upstream before the > package can be approved. Trying to do that. Contacted via a web form a week ago, no response. Sent mail to the authors now. > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX Done. > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. NEEDSFIX > - Add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt (In reply to comment #4) > Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please > have a look if you can get it to build. I'm not going to do this. This is a software package, not a substitution for developer's infrastructure. If upstream wanted me to do this, they would integrate it in the build system. I doubt anyone will miss it anyways.
(In reply to comment #5) > Thanks for the review. No problem. If you want to repay me you can review some of my packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jussilehtola#Awaiting_review All of these are very simple (firehol is the most elaborate since it has a initrd script). > (In reply to comment #4) > > Also, IIUC there is documentation that can be generated using doxygen, please > > have a look if you can get it to build. > > I'm not going to do this. This is a software package, not a substitution for > developer's infrastructure. If upstream wanted me to do this, they would > integrate it in the build system. > > I doubt anyone will miss it anyways. You're right, the package doesn't even have development headers so there's no need to have API information.
Yay, got a response about license; essentially "written under contrect for goverment -- no copyright" (by the way, shouldn't this apply to cdf as well?). Added the copy of the e-mail to the package. Future versions will include the license file in distribution tarball. Applied your BR fix as well. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/skyviewer.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/skyviewer-1.0.0-2.fc11.src.rpm
Looks good now, APPROVED. PS. Please add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt to %doc since they contain some important information.
(In reply to comment #8) > PS. Please add general.txt and notes-ngp.txt to %doc since they contain some > important information. Sorry I forgot. I will do so upon import. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: skyviewer Short Description: Program to display HEALPix-based skymaps in FITS files Owners: lkundrak Branches: EL-5 F-10 InitialCC: astronomy-sig
cvs done.
You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet?
(In reply to comment #11) > You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet? Just done that, thanks for reminding! (By the way, I won't mind if you create updates for my packages, or commit to them or build them or anything. Feel free to do so anytime!)
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > You haven't pushed the F10 package as update yet? > > Just done that, thanks for reminding! > > (By the way, I won't mind if you create updates for my packages, or commit to > them or build them or anything. Feel free to do so anytime!) Oh but I can't, since AFAIK I'm not a provenpackager :) PS. Add the Review Request to the bug field in the update manager, so it'll close the review bug automatically.