Spec URL: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec SRPM URL: http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The XDG Base Directory Specification defines where should user files be looked for by defining one or more base directories relative in with they should be located. This library implements functions to list the directories according to the specification and provides a few higher-level functions.
Scratch in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1340407 Rpmlint output: newman@dhcp-lab-124 SPECS $ rpmlint /home/newman/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc11.src.rpm /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libxdg-basedir-devel-1.0.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm /home/newman/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libxdg-basedir-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libxdg-basedir.spec libxdg-basedir.x86_64: W: no-documentation libxdg-basedir-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I've reviewed the package and it looks ok. There are only some minor and uncritical issues: * rpmlint: TODO rpmlint SPECS/libxdg-basedir.spec SRPMS/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/i386/libxdg-basedir-* libxdg-basedir.i386: W: no-documentation libxdg-basedir-devel.i386: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. In general it is not a problem to have no documentation if a package doesn't provide any. ;-) However, in this specific case the package provides a doxygen API documentation (make doxygen-all). It would be good if it could be added to the devel package. * naming: OK - name matches upstream - spec file name matches package name * sources: TODO - e32bcfa772fb57e8e1acdf9616a8d567 libxdg-basedir-1.0.0.tar.gz - sources matches upstream - Source0 tag ok - spectool -g works - upstream version 1.0.1 was released a couple of weeks ago, please update to the new version (according to upstream's git repo it looks like a minor bug fix release) * License: TODO - License MIT acceptable - License in spec file matches the actual license (MIT license header in libxdg-basedir-1.0.0/src/basedir.c ) - No License file included, so there is no need to package it. - It would be better if upstream would provide a license file. According to the Review guidelines the packager is encouraged to query upstream to include it. However this will not block the review. * spec file written in English and legible: OK * compilation: OK - supports parallel build - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used - builds in mock (F10) - builds in koji: F10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394643 F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394648 F12: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397616 * BuildRequires: OK - no build requires are necessary * locales handling: OK (n/a) * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK * package owns all directories that it creates: TODO - %{_libdkir}/pkgconfig is created, but not owned by libxdg-basedir-devel - please add a "Requires: pkgconfig" to the devel package * no files listed twice in %files: OK * file permissions: OK - %defattr used - actual permissions in packages ok * %clean section: OK * macro usage: OK * code vs. content: OK (only code) * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) * header files in -devel subpackage: OK * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) * package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": TODO (see above) * *.so link in -devel package: OK * - devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK * packages must not contain *.la files: OK * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK * all filenames UTF-8: OK * functional test: OK - compiling the provided test applications tests/testfind and tests/testdump - test apps compile successfully and the reported directory names seem to be meaningful * debuginfo sub-package: OK - non-empty - debuginfo file works together with gdb
(In reply to comment #2) > I've reviewed the package and it looks ok. There are only some minor and > uncritical issues: Thanks for the review, Christian. Good work. > * rpmlint: TODO > rpmlint SPECS/libxdg-basedir.spec SRPMS/libxdg-basedir-1.0.0-1.fc10.src.rpm > RPMS/i386/libxdg-basedir-* > libxdg-basedir.i386: W: no-documentation > libxdg-basedir-devel.i386: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > In general it is not a problem to have no documentation if > a package doesn't provide any. ;-) However, in this specific case > the package provides a doxygen API documentation (make doxygen-all). > It would be good if it could be added to the devel package. Now we have -docs sub-package with Doxygen generated documentation. > * naming: OK > - name matches upstream > - spec file name matches package name > > * sources: TODO > - e32bcfa772fb57e8e1acdf9616a8d567 libxdg-basedir-1.0.0.tar.gz > - sources matches upstream > - Source0 tag ok > - spectool -g works > - upstream version 1.0.1 was released a couple of weeks ago, please update to > the new version (according to upstream's git repo it looks like a minor > bug fix release) Packed. > * License: TODO > - License MIT acceptable > - License in spec file matches the actual license (MIT license header in > libxdg-basedir-1.0.0/src/basedir.c ) > - No License file included, so there is no need to package it. > - It would be better if upstream would provide a license file. According to the > Review guidelines the packager is encouraged to query upstream to include it. > However this will not block the review. Encouraged :). You're in Cc. > * spec file written in English and legible: OK > > * compilation: OK > - supports parallel build > - RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used > - builds in mock (F10) > - builds in koji: > F10: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394643 > F11: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1394648 > F12: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1397616 > > * BuildRequires: OK > - no build requires are necessary > > * locales handling: OK (n/a) > > * ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK > > * package owns all directories that it creates: TODO > - %{_libdkir}/pkgconfig is created, but not owned by libxdg-basedir-devel > - please add a "Requires: pkgconfig" to the devel package Added. > * no files listed twice in %files: OK > > * file permissions: OK > - %defattr used > - actual permissions in packages ok > > * %clean section: OK > > * macro usage: OK > > * code vs. content: OK (only code) > > * large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a) > > * header files in -devel subpackage: OK > > * static libraries in -static package: OK (n/a) > > * package containing *.pc files must "Requires: pkgconfig": TODO (see above) > > * *.so link in -devel package: OK > > * - devel package requires base package using fully versioned dependency: OK > > * packages must not contain *.la files: OK > > * GUI applications must provide *.desktop file: OK (n/a) > > * packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages: OK > > * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install: OK > > * all filenames UTF-8: OK > > * functional test: OK > - compiling the provided test applications > tests/testfind and tests/testdump > - test apps compile successfully and the reported directory names seem to be > meaningful Added to %make check. > * debuginfo sub-package: OK > - non-empty > - debuginfo file works together with gdb -- http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
Hi Michal, thanks for the fast reply. I believe we are very close to approval, just two minor items: (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > In general it is not a problem to have no documentation if > > a package doesn't provide any. ;-) However, in this specific case > > the package provides a doxygen API documentation (make doxygen-all). > > It would be good if it could be added to the devel package. > > Now we have -docs sub-package with Doxygen generated documentation. Ok, good! Only one small request: please can you rename the -docs package into -doc? I'm not 100% sure about this because I've found on my system packages with both naming conventions. However, the packaging guidelines only mention -doc: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > * License: TODO > > - License MIT acceptable > > - License in spec file matches the actual license (MIT license header in > > libxdg-basedir-1.0.0/src/basedir.c ) > > - No License file included, so there is no need to package it. > > - It would be better if upstream would provide a license file. According to the > > Review guidelines the packager is encouraged to query upstream to include it. > > However this will not block the review. > > Encouraged :). You're in Cc. Great - looks like Mark already added it. It is sufficient to include it in the package once upstream provides a new tarball. No further action needed right now. ;-) > > * sources: TODO > > - e32bcfa772fb57e8e1acdf9616a8d567 libxdg-basedir-1.0.0.tar.gz > > - sources matches upstream > > - Source0 tag ok > > - spectool -g works > > - upstream version 1.0.1 was released a couple of weeks ago, please update to > > the new version (according to upstream's git repo it looks like a minor > > bug fix release) > > Packed. Just for reference: the new source tarball matches upstream - md5sum: 941dacde04db15164c9aca5a1d856665 libxdg-basedir-1.0.1.tar.gz > > * package owns all directories that it creates: TODO > > - %{_libdkir}/pkgconfig is created, but not owned by libxdg-basedir-devel > > - please add a "Requires: pkgconfig" to the devel package > > Added. Sorry, probably there was a small misunderstanding here. Adding "Requires: pkgconfig" is sufficient since it will provide the ownership of %{_libdir}/pkgconfig. So it is not needed that libxdg-base-devel owns the pkgconfig directory itself (and other packages with *.pc files don't do it either... ;-) ). Best regards, Christian
(In reply to comment #4) Hola, thanks for the review. Re: """ Ok, good! Only one small request: please can you rename the -docs package into -doc? I'm not 100% sure about this because I've found on my system packages with both naming conventions. However, the packaging guidelines only mention -doc: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation """ Correct. I misread the docs. Corrected. Re: """ Sorry, probably there was a small misunderstanding here. Adding "Requires: pkgconfig" is sufficient since it will provide the ownership of %{_libdir}/pkgconfig. So it is not needed that libxdg-base-devel owns the pkgconfig directory itself (and other packages with *.pc files don't do it either... ;-) ). """ Yep. Right. I should use brain next time. Both issues fixed: * Tue Jun 9 2009 Michal Nowak <mnowak> - 1.0.1-2 - removed bogus ownership of %%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ - "docs" sub-package renamed to "doc" http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
Hello Michal, (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > Both issues fixed: > > * Tue Jun 9 2009 Michal Nowak <mnowak> - 1.0.1-2 > - removed bogus ownership of %%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ > - "docs" sub-package renamed to "doc" > > > http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir.spec > http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/libxdg-basedir/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm I've reviewed the new packages and all reported issues are fixed. -> APPROVED. Christian
Thanks a lot, Christian!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libxdg-basedir Short Description: Implementation of the XDG Base Directory Specifications Owners: mnowak Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: mnowak
cvs done.
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc10
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.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 libxdg-basedir'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-6047
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 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 libxdg-basedir'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6372
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libxdg-basedir-1.0.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.