SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libplist.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libplist-0.12.0-1.20090510gite925e6f.fc11.src.rpm libplist is a Library for manipulating Apple Binary and XML Property Lists
Good: + Basename of SPECE files matches with package name + Package contains valid License tag + License tag has LGPLv2+ as valid OSS license + Copyrith notes in source match with license tag + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Package has several sub packages + Sub package has proper BRs and Req. + consistently usage of rpm macros Bad: - Local build doesn't works - Koji build fails The readme told me, that we need swig, but build fails even if I have added swig as an BR. Please see. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1346448 - git-archive seem no to exist anymore, so please fix the comment how you have create th tar ball
> Bad: > - Local build doesn't works > - Koji build fails Looking at them now. > The readme told me, that we need swig, but build fails even > if I have added swig as an BR. Please see. I think its optional. > - git-archive seem no to exist anymore, so please fix the comment > how you have create th tar ball Well its still in Fedora 10 which is what I used to generate the tarball. I'll have a look to see what replaces it.
OK, the build is now working in koji (it was before for me locally), helpfully upstream have now also provided a release tarball :) SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libplist.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libplist-0.12-1.fc11.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1346529
REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: libplist-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libplist-python.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python/site-packages/libplist/_PList.so libplist-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation I guess the "no-documentation" ones can be ignored. You should also use the python_sitelib macro, as the module should live in /usr/lib64/python2.5/... + 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. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file must matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. For the sub-packages, I'd rather have: Development files for %{name}, <insert short description>. Similar for the python sub-package. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source: $ sha1sum libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 bdcaff582eaf82910df580631cd1a07f22b351ca ../SOURCES/libplist-0.12.tar.bz2 + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji log above). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + 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. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + The library files that ends in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI application. + 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 must be valid UTF-8. I think the -python sub-package is missing a python requires. Rest looks good.
> I guess the "no-documentation" ones can be ignored. > You should also use the python_sitelib macro, as the module should live in > /usr/lib64/python2.5/... Plan on doing that but it somewhere slightly non default (looking at my system its not the only one that does it) but I have reported it upstream and will correct. > For the sub-packages, I'd rather have: > Development files for %{name}, <insert short description>. > > Similar for the python sub-package. No problems. Fixed. > I think the -python sub-package is missing a python requires. Rest looks good. I thought that python was automatically done. It appears not. Fixed. SPEC is same spot as before. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/libplist-0.12-2.fc11.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #5) > > I guess the "no-documentation" ones can be ignored. > > You should also use the python_sitelib macro, as the module should live in > > /usr/lib64/python2.5/... > > Plan on doing that but it somewhere slightly non default (looking at my system > its not the only one that does it) but I have reported it upstream and will > correct. You'd just need to move the directory in your install section. With that fix done, approved.
Excellent, thanks will do.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libplist Short Description: Library for manipulating Apple Binary and XML Property Lists Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Imported. Built for F-9 - F-12.