Spec URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mingw32-libp11.spec SRPM URL: http://www.smartlink.ee/~kalev/mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Libp11 is a library implementing a small layer on top of PKCS#11 API to make using PKCS#11 implementations easier. This is the MinGW cross-compiled Windows library. The version of libp11 used here is 0.2.4, while the main Fedora package is still at 0.2.3. The reason for picking a newer version for the mingw32 package is that the older one needs several modifications to successfully build, whereas this one build cleanly with mingw32. Approved packaging guidelines for MinGW are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1279142 I'll also need a sponsor. I have posted a few package review requests (and have done unofficial reviews), but none of my packages are in Fedora yet.
rpmlint: mingw32-libp11.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libp11.dll.a mingw32-libp11.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libp11.dll.a mingw32-libp11.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/libp11.h mingw32-libp11.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libp11.pc mingw32-libp11.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libp11.la mingw32-libp11.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libp11.dll.a mingw32-libp11.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. (this is f10 rpmlint, f11 rpmlint would not have complained) These can be ignored as per: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint
+ rpmlint output + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora LGPLv2+ + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 9e2c5cbececde245e2d2f535bd49ce35 libp11-0.2.4.tar.gz 9e2c5cbececde245e2d2f535bd49ce35 p/libp11-0.2.4.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture noarch n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel ok for mingw packages to have headers n/a static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files allowed according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available n/a reviewer should build the package in mock + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin APPROVED by sailer Note: I am not a sponsor, I cannot sponsor you
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libp11 Short Description: MingGW Windows libp11 library Owners: kalev rjones Branches: F-10 InitialCC:
I think you first need a sponsor, then get a fedora account, before you can request CVS...
Thanks for your very fast review, Thomas. Richard Jones said he is not familiar with how the sponsorship system works and that he'll try setting fedora‑cvs? flag for me. That's why I requested CVS without being sponsored.
Please see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Before you are sponsored, you do not have a fedora account (kalev does not exist), and therefore you cannot be owner of a package in CVS.
I am familiar with the HowToGetSponsored page and I do have an FAS account for a while now. Please see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/kalev So far I have posted 3 packages for review (and they all block FE-NEEDSPONSOR). Besides the mingw32-libp11 I have: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=mingw32-opensc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=powwow I have also done a few unofficial reviews and commented in some bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491617 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491614 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492165 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492122 In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=mingw32-cairomm I did the official review. Richard Jones checked on my review and set the fedora‑review+ flag for me. Regarding this package here, I discussed the situation with Richard Jones and he suggested that he could try setting the fedora‑cvs? flag as I still don't have a sponsor, that's the reason I posted the CVS request too.
Canceling CVS request, this needs sponsorship first. The sponsor should also be the one setting fedora-review.
rjones. my personal suggestion is to request a upgrade to your Fedora Account (sponsor + provenpackager), so you can sponsor the people yourself. is very hard to get sponsored, and you're the guy, if you're become the guy with the power will be best :-)
I'm sponsoring kalev now, so this is approved (as per comment 2) and we would like CVS (as per comment 3).
I think we now need F-11 branch too after the mass-branching last night. Updated request: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libp11 Short Description: MingGW Windows libp11 library Owners: kalev rjones Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done. Do remember to assign the bug to the reviewer and move it to assigned. ;)
mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc11
mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc10
mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.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 mingw32-libp11'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3739
mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mingw32-libp11-0.2.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.