Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10.src.rpm Description: FlameRobin is a database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit
Hello, I am not a sponsor, so I can not take a sponsorship of you, but I can make an unofficial review. At first, when writing a package from scratch, you should base your spec file on the Fedora spec file template, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rpmdevtools command: rpmdev-newspec For naming, licensing and other conventions, see&study Package Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines For using macros inside od spec, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros Build fails with this error: usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lfbclient please, fix this... regards, Zarko
Thanks but it cannot be builded without firebird-devel : BuildRequires: firebird-devel please re check it, I upgraded both spec and src.rpm And that package is a Mandriva -> Fedora move, it is not writen from scratch ;)
(In reply to comment #2) > > And that package is a Mandriva -> Fedora move, it is not writen from scratch ;) That is the problem. Some macros do not exist on Fedora. Exp: %{_iconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_liconsdir}/%{name}.png %{_miconsdir}/%{name}.png I think that we do not have these macros on Fedora. Check it. For desktop files you must do validate (it is commented for now) I do not currently ttied build this package, but I will. I see that the Firebird is in the review process, too, so I must build it in my personal repo for testing...
(In reply to comment #3) > That is the problem. Some macros do not exist on Fedora. > Exp: > %{_iconsdir}/%{name}.png > %{_liconsdir}/%{name}.png > %{_miconsdir}/%{name}.png > > I think that we do not have these macros on Fedora. Check it. checked no problem > For desktop files you must do validate (it is commented for now) done
* Validation of .desktop files needs this: BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils so include this BR into spec * Macro names: %{_iconsdir} %{_liconsdir} %{_miconsdir} do not pass in my mock build, please use standard macros from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
sorry I really don't understand if I make a rpm --showrc , these macros are there (f10) and if not %{_iconsdir}, %{_liconsdir}, %{_miconsdir}, then what else ? Have you a suggestion ?
(In reply to comment #6) > sorry I really don't understand > if I make a rpm --showrc , these macros are there (f10) > > and if not %{_iconsdir}, %{_liconsdir}, %{_miconsdir}, then what else ? > Have you a suggestion ? I currently have three Fedora installations on my PC Two of F10 and one of F11 branches Only at one of my Fedora branches I have these macros defined, so I suggest to you that change these macros with: %{_iconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons %{_liconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons/large %{_miconsdir} change to: %{_datadir}/icons/mini Or, why you do not put these icons to standard dirs, like: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/%{name}.png %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/%{name}.png and reformat install and convert commands at %install section to use these dirs, and after that simply refresh icons cache?
Notes: On my system _iconsdir or so is defined, however ------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep %_iconsdir /etc/rpm/macros.* /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage:%_iconsdir %{_datadir}/icons [tasaka1@localhost ~]$ grep -l %_iconsdir /etc/rpm/macros.* | xargs rpm -qf jpackage-utils-1.7.5-2.7.fc11.noarch ------------------------------------------------------- i.e. only when jpackage-utils (Java related package) is installed, these macros can be used. So if you want to use macros such as _iconsdir, "BuildRequires: jpackage-utils" is needed to make it sure that %_sysconfdir/rpm/macros.jpackage surely exists. However - This package does not seem to be related to Java - So adding "BR: jpackage-utils" just to define %_iconsdir or so is not desired - Also almost all packages on Fedora installing files under %_datadir/icons/ use %_datadir/icons, not %_iconsdir So replacing %_iconsdir with %_datadir/icons is much preferable.
ok, upgraded Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-1.fc10.src.rpm
Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I sponsored Philippe.
since firebird is there now : builds are ok for F-10 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1341293 but can you help me to find why it failed for Epel ? http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1341334&name=build.log
Please, don't raise fedora-review flags for packages submitted by you (this is a reviewer's work, not submitter's).
(In reply to comment #12) > Please, don't raise fedora-review flags for packages submitted by you (this is > a reviewer's work, not submitter's). oups sorry
I rewrite it Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec SRPM URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10.src.rpm and this time build is ok http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1349033 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1349026
I'll review it.
Notes: * Use full patch for Source0: http://dfn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/flamerobin/flamerobin-0.9.2-src.tar.gz * remove --mandir explicit parameter passing (%configure already makes it) * change %makeinstall to "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" * this line is not needed at all "mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications" Other things looks sane. Here is a koji scratch build withall these changes: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397625
ok, changes made : Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec koji scratch builds are ok : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397855 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397860 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397864
REVIEW: + rpmlint is almost silent - it only complains about empty sections, which should be removed (however it's a purely cosmetic change): [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ rpmlint flamerobin-* flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%post flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%postun flamerobin.i386: W: empty-%posttrans 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [petro@Workplace Desktop]$ + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines with one remaining issue - doc-files are listed twice. First - as %doc, second - as a contents of %{_datadir}/%{name}/docs. I advice you to add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/docs at the end of the %install section. Btw, maybe it's better to list docs as "%doc docs/*" rather than "%doc docs" ? + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See links above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. There is a single place where the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used instead of %{buildroot} - this may be ignored. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed (checked with desktop-file-validate in the %install section). + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Conclusion: * consider to remove empty sections from spec-file * remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}
ok * consider to remove empty sections from spec-file made * remove duplicated docs from $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name} made I also removed the no need BuildRequires:ImageMagick changes made : Spec URL: http://ibphoenix.fr//fedora/flamerobin.spec http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1403525
Ok, APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: flamerobin Short Description: database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit Owners: pmakowski Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5
I see no account "pmakowski" in the account system. Please correct, submit a new CVS request and set the fedora-cvs flag back to '?'.
sorry for the typo New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: flamerobin Short Description: database administration tool for Firebird DBMS based on wxgtk toolkit Owners: makowski Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5
CVS done.
flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11
flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10
flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
flamerobin-0.9.2-0.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.