Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/trac-tracnav-plugin/trac-tracnav-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/trac-tracnav-plugin/trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The TracNav macro implements a fully customizable navigation bar for the Trac wiki engine. The contents of the navigation bar is a wiki page itself and can be edited like any other wiki page through the web interface. The navigation bar supports hierarchical ordering of topics. The design of TracNav mimics the design of the TracGuideToc that was originally supplied with Trac.
$ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application I assume this program will be called via webinterface, this may is a GUI, but I think a desktop file is not necessary for this kind of GUI OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock N/A: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures this is a noarch package N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should since I do not have installed trac and don't use it N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Issues I found: According to [1] %global is preferred over %define, so line 3 should be changed to %global. Try to bail out the 80 chars in the description. I don't like the %{python_sitelib}/* construct in the %files section because it does not contain any package or module name. Another packager would not see what files and/or directories the package exactly includes and has to build and rpmls the package first to find this out. I would like to see the module name mentioned and would recommend to list the other directory as %{python_sitelib}/TracNav-4.1-py*.egg-info/ to avoid problems or unneccessary work with next python update. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define
(In reply to comment #1) > Issues I found: > According to [1] %global is preferred over %define, so line 3 should be changed > to %global. Fixed. > Try to bail out the 80 chars in the description. If you insist, but normally I have emacs' fill-column set to 70 (the default, as far as I know). > I don't like the %{python_sitelib}/* construct in the %files section Unless there's a guideline that forces me to do so, I'd prefer not to list individual files or directories here, because removing redundancy makes maintaining the package much easier. Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/trac-tracnav-plugin/trac-tracnav-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/trac-tracnav-plugin/trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2) > Unless there's a guideline that forces me to do so, I'd prefer not to list > individual files or directories here, because removing redundancy makes > maintaining the package much easier. On the other hand, life is easier for other maintainers, when they can read something directly out of the spec and don't need to use rpm -qpl. Changed status to assigned, as Dominic already started the review.
$ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application I assume this program will be called via webinterface, this may is a GUI, but I think a desktop file is not necessary for this kind of GUI OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock N/A: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures this is a noarch package N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should since I do not have installed trac and don't use it N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Try to bail out the 80 chars in the description. > > If you insist, but normally I have emacs' fill-column set to 70 (the default, > as far as I know). I do not insist on that. I think it is also okay to have 70 chars per line, even if I would prefer 80 and rpmlint allows until 79 chars per line. It's not worth changing your emacs settings at all. > > I don't like the %{python_sitelib}/* construct in the %files section > > Unless there's a guideline that forces me to do so, I'd prefer not to list > individual files or directories here, because removing redundancy makes > maintaining the package much easier. Since there is no guideline about this - at least no guideline I know - there unfortunately doesn't seem to be any way to force you to write the %file list more human readable. ;) APPROVED.
Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: trac-tracnav-plugin Short Description: Navigation Bar for Trac Owners: thm Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC: none Cvsextras Commits: yes
Note that we haven't used "Cvsextras Commits" for quite some time now. Otherwise, CVS done.
trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11
trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.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 trac-tracnav-plugin'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-8691
trac-tracnav-plugin-4.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.