Hide Forgot
SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley-0.0.9-1.fc11.src.rpm Moblin widgets for people information
Upstream is already at 0.0.12 ./autogen.sh %configure --disable-static autogens tend to run configure, so here we have it twice which I think is best avoided, say ./autogen.sh --help > /dev/null or looking at what autogen does autoreconf -v -i Requires: gtk-doc doesn't seem to be necessary, no doc build setup upstream yet
> Upstream is already at 0.0.12 Yes. Its moving quite quickly but 0.0.9 is currently what upstream is using. The plan was to get the basic moblin working and then moving components to newer versions where its easier to see what broke. > ./autogen.sh > %configure --disable-static > > autogens tend to run configure, so here we have it twice which I think is best > avoided, say > ./autogen.sh --help > /dev/null > or looking at what autogen does > autoreconf -v -i I leave it there in the dream that one day they will do releases with make dist :) > Requires: gtk-doc doesn't seem to be necessary, no doc build setup upstream > yet Yes, I'd already fixed that on my local copy.
Updated to the latest upstream release - 0.0.13 SPEC: as above SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley-0.0.13-1.fc11.src.rpm Koji build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1454154
I think ./autogen.sh invocation should be in %prep stage not %build. Maybe that's a matter of taste. And include a comment in the specfile, describing why the configure inside the tarball is insufficient, and must be regenerated.
Whoops, I missed the comment near the BuildRequires.
(In reply to comment #4) > I think ./autogen.sh invocation should be in %prep stage not %build. Maybe > that's a matter of taste. I've always seen it just above configure as it runs configure as part of it. Some suggest you drop the configure line as part of it but I tend to leave it for consistency and to ensure the exact results I was after (not sure if the rpm macro does anything special as well)
autogen.sh generates source code. I.e. it's working principle is similar to applying patches. => If autogen/autoreconf is being used during rpm builts it should be run in %prep On a wider scale, only people, who don't understand the working principles of the autotools run any autotool when building rpms.
> On a wider scale, only people, who don't understand the working principles of > the autotools run any autotool when building rpms. I've seen the discussion on fedora-devel. please leave it there.
New upstream release. Adds translations. Adding dep on clutter-imcontext as this release depends on a new nbtk which in turn depends on clutter-im.context SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley-0.0.17-1.fc11.src.rpm
New upstream release, and a build now all the deps are in rawhide :) SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley-0.0.18-1.fc11.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1532838
So I'm going to take on this one... :)
Okay, here we go! * The version number in the changelog looks like a typo. * I guess the %description could be a little bit expanded... ;) * Upstream is apparently at version 0.0.20 right now, please update! Otherwise, looks good to me. Please address the points and I'll approve the package. --- MUST Items: FAILED - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [sebastian@localhost ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/anerley-*.rpm anerley.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.17-1 ['0.0.18-1.fc12', '0.0.18-1'] anerley-devel.i586: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] OK - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11] OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] OK - MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] N/A - MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] OK - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] OK - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] OK - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21] OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] OK - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22] OK - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [23] OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27] N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [28] OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] OK - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [21]
(In reply to comment #12) > Okay, here we go! > > * The version number in the changelog looks like a typo. Yes, copy and paste error in the 0.0.18 entry. Fixed. > * I guess the %description could be a little bit expanded... ;) I've expanded it a little bit, suggestions welcome. > * Upstream is apparently at version 0.0.20 right now, please update! Updated. SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/anerley-0.0.20-1.fc11.src.rpm Thanks.
Building this fails right now in Rawhide due to dependency issues with nbtk-devel, but once this is fixed, I'll approve it. --Sebastian
It's building fine now in Rawhide (see scratch build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1581355) so this package is APPROVED.
Thanks! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: anerley Short Description: Moblin widgets for people information Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
built and on its way to rawhide.
Now in rawhide. Thanks for the review :-)