Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gpxviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gpxviewer-0.0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm Project URL: http://blog.sarine.nl/gpx-viewer/ Description: GPX Viewer is a simple program to visualize a gpx file. It has no intention to become a full blown manager, editor or analyzer. Koji scratch build: Depends on libchamplain 0.3.3 which is not available at the moment rpmlint output: [fab@laptop09 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gpxviewer-0.0.7-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [fab@laptop09 i586]$ rpmlint gpxviewer* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I'm going to do an informal review. :)
+ package name: ok + spec file name: ok + valid license: ok + license tag: ok + used sources matches upstream (MD5: ee2ad8c9918f817c445ed799d5c1dd2b) + BuildRequire tags seem to be complete + usage of locales: ok + no duplicated files listed + files section and permissions: ok + package owns its files + no development files (headers, libraries) + no large documentation + no sub-packages + no pkgconfig files + install section: ok + scriptlets (post, postun, posttrans) are sane and valid This package looks pretty clean to me.
Taking over review.
Package does not build in mock: checking for intltool >= 0.21... ./configure: line 11364: intltool-update: command not found found configure: error: Your intltool is too old. You need intltool 0.21 or later. RPM build errors: ** After adding BR: intltool checking for modules... configure: error: Package requirements ( gtk+-2.0 >= 2.16 champlain-gtk-0.3 >= 0.3.3 champlain-0.3 >= 0.3.3 gmodule-2.0 libxml-2.0 ) were not met: No package 'libxml-2.0' found BR: libxml-devel should be libxml2-devel
rpmlint output is clean. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. 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}. 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. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK - hicolor-icon-theme is necessary for dir ownership. MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK - Add the missing BRs as per comment #4. ** Fix the BR issue before CVS import. The package has been APPROVED
(In reply to comment #2) > This package looks pretty clean to me. You didn't check the desktop file installation (which was OK). I recommend using mock to do reviews, not only since it keeps your RPM build directory a lot cleaner, but also since it helps you pick up necessary requirements :)
(In reply to comment #6) > I recommend using mock to do reviews, not only since it keeps your RPM build > directory a lot cleaner, but also since it helps you pick up necessary > requirements :) Ok, thanks for the hint. I'm just installing mock and will have a look at it tonight.
Thanks Martin and Jussi for the review. I will fix the BR before cvs import.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gpxviewer Short Description: A simple gpx viewer Owners: fab Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
Sorry again. libchamplain < 0.3.5 will not be available for F-10. This branch is not needed. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gpxviewer Short Description: A simple gpx viewer Owners: fab Branches: F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
There is a problem with the name. There is already a project (an older one that is hosted on launchpad too) called gpxviewer ( https://launchpad.net/gpxviewer ). Upstream has started to rename all parts to gpx-viewer. Jason, can this simple be done with a 'Rename Request'? I made an initial import to gpxviewer but never made a build. If it's easier for you, delete this import without hesitation ;-) Rename Request ======================= Package Name: gpx-viewer Short Description: A simple gpx viewer Owners: fab Branches: F-11 InitialCC:
I do not have the power to remove the old import. I've asked an admin to do it, and it should be gone soon. I've set up the new module.
Any progress in packaging GPX Viewer? I compiled it manually with dependencies from Fedora 11 repos without problem, as you can see here: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/index.php/archives/gpx-viewer/
I updated the package to 0.1.1 but I still have a build issue.
gpx-viewer-0.1.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpx-viewer-0.1.1-1.fc11
gpx-viewer-0.1.1-1.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 gpx-viewer'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10349
Works great for me. Thanks!
gpx-viewer-0.1.1-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpx-viewer-0.1.1-4.fc12
gpx-viewer-0.1.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.