Spec URL: <http://balajig8.fedorapeople.org/packages/ascii/ascii.spec>
SRPM URL: <hhttp://balajig8.fedorapeople.org/packages/ascii/ascii-3.8-1.fc10.src.rpm>
Description: <The ascii utility provides easy conversion between various byte representations and the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) character table. >
I just finished packaging Ascii which is my first package and I would appreciate a review so that i could add this into fedora .
Ascii is one of the packages mentioned in the Package Wishlist.
Thanks for your time.
It would be great if some could sponsor me as this is my first package.
OK, I will take a look on it, if the package is ok, I will sponsor you.
At first, it will be nice, if you can upload the source rpm too.
Without the source rpm I can't start to review your packages.
At first some advices
* Please add a full qualified URL from which you can downloaded the upstream tar ball in the Source tag
* GPL is not a valid abbrevious of the GPL license. Please keep in mind, that there are several versions of the GPL. I detailed explaination you may find at
* Please remove the Packager tag
* You don't need to check for the buildroot before delete it on the beginning of %clean and %install
* Please delete the brackets, if you fill out the predefined fields.
Thanks for your replies. I have uploaded the Source RPM and the Spec files at the location http://balajig8.fedorapeople.org/packages/ascii/
I have addressed your review comments and have placed the SPEC file and the SRPM at the following location
Please review the same
I have addressed your review comments and have placed the SPEC file and the SRPM at the following location for your review.
It look like, that you didn't upload a correct release of your package.
Please keep in mind do increase the release number each time if you make a change on your package.
Sorry for the inconvenience. Yes i had uploaded the wrong file.I have updated the release tag in the Spec and uploaded the SRPM at the location for your review.
+ Basename of the SPEC files matches with packagename
+ Packagename fullfill naming guildelines
+ URL tag shows on proper project homepage
+ Package contains most recent stable release of the application
+ Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g
+ Package sources matches with upstream
+ Consistently rpm macro usage in this package
+ Package has no subpackages
+ Package has proper license tag
+ License tag exclaim GPLv2 as a valid OSS license
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package support SMP build
+ Local install and uninstall works fine
+ Call of the application works fine
+ Koji scratch build works fine
+ Package has small %doc stanza, so we need no extra doc subpackage
+ Files has proper file permission
+ All packaged files are owned by the package
+ %files stanza has no duplicated entries
+ No packaged file belong to another package
- Copyright headers have only a refernce to the LICENSE/COPYING
file. Please talk to upstream, that he should include a more
clean copyright note on the source file
- Please remove the Packager tag
- You don't need to test the existance of the Buildroot before
- build don't honour RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- Rpmlint has warning on source rpm:
ascii.src: W: summary-not-capitalized interactive ASCII name and synonym chart
ascii.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary ASCII
ascii.src: W: non-standard-group Utilities/Text
ascii.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 72, tab: line 82)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
- Rpmlint complaints binary package:
ascii.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized interactive ASCII name and synonym chart
ascii.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary ASCII
ascii.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Utilities/Text
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
- Debuginfo package doesn't contains sources
- Please remove the old Changelog and beginning with a new one.
imo, preserving historical/old changelog is ok, preferred actually, to provide history and attribution. (Provided it's not huge and doesn't impact pkg size anyway).
Thank you so much for your extensive review.I have addressed the review comments and have placed the package and the spec file at the following location for your review.
Please wrtie $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or $(RPM_BUILD_ROOT) instead of $"RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
Please create a proper Buildroot defintion https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
The build step in your package doesn't use the compiler flags defined in $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.
the Debuginfo package doesn't contains the source files of your package. This may be happen because the build step doesn't use the compiler flags defined in $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ Rpmlint is silent on source rpm
+ Rpmlint is silent on binary rpm
+ rpmlint is silent on debuginfo rpm
*** Bug 510856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry couldn't work on this will start this again and repackage it with your comments :)
First of all sorry for the real delay. I was not in station unexpectedly and hence couldnt do it. I have made the changes and uploaded the SPEC file and the SRC RPM at the following location
Thanks for your inputs and time.
Unfortunately, I have to recorgnise, that you didn't made your homework.
I have the feeling, that you don't have the base skills to become a fedora packager.
Because the package you want to provides is on the wishlist, I will close this review request and create an own one.