Spec URL: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~laptop-mode-tools-dev/laptop-mode-tools/main/download/head:/laptopmodetools.spec-20090724093155-g4ir4u16u9tyn7ik-1/laptop-mode-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.researchut.com/tmp/laptop-mode-tools-1.50-1.src.rpm Description: Laptop mode is a Linux kernel feature that allows your laptop to save considerable power, by allowing the hard drive to spin down for longer periods of time. This package contains the userland scripts that are needed to enable laptop mode. It includes support for automatically enabling laptop mode when the computer is working on batteries. It also supports various other power management features, such as starting and stopping daemons depending on power mode, automatically hibernating if battery levels are too low, and adjusting terminal blanking and X11 screen blanking.
The spec needs a lot of fixing, therefore I added NotReady to the status whiteboard. Please remove it after you have addressed these issues: 1) The spec does not match the srpm, the spec is for version 1.51, but the srpm is for version 1.50 2) GPL is not a valid license tag, it might be GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, ... You can find more information about this here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL 3) Vendor and Packager should not be used: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Tags 4) The Distribution tag should probably not be used, but I asked on fedora-packaging about this 5) The init script should not be started automatically in %post imho, because the user might first want to tweak laptop-mode before it is started 6) %{_usr}/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d must not be owned by laptop-mode-tools, it is owned by filesystem for Fedora Rawhide (F12) 7) The manpages in %files should hava an asterisk appended (*), because in the Fedora buildsystem, the manpages will be gzipped, so the pattern won't match. Also it is not needed to mark them as %doc, this is already done automatically 8) %{_usr}/sbin should be %{_sbindir} and %{_usr}/share %{_datadir}, also it is uncommon to use %{_usr} but to use %{_prefix} instead You also need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, because you do not have submitted any package to Fedora. Here is more information about the whole process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
(In reply to comment #1) > The spec needs a lot of fixing, therefore I added NotReady to the status > whiteboard. Please remove it after you have addressed these issues: > > 1) The spec does not match the srpm, the spec is for version 1.51, but the srpm > is for version 1.50 Hmmm!! I'm not sure. I think I linked the r1.50 file. > 2) GPL is not a valid license tag, it might be GPL+, GPLv2, GPLv2+, ... > You can find more information about this here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL Done > 3) Vendor and Packager should not be used: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Tags I used it because the .spec file you reviewed is something I'm going to be shipping with the upstream tarball. One of my goals with that spec is to make it RPM distro generic. > 4) The Distribution tag should probably not be used, but I asked on > fedora-packaging about this Same as 3 > 5) The init script should not be started automatically in %post imho, because > the user might first want to tweak laptop-mode before it is started It shouldn't harm. The default settings of laptop-mode-tools thrive to give you a basic power saving profile. If it is a policy, I can disable it. > 6) %{_usr}/lib/pm-utils/sleep.d must not be owned by laptop-mode-tools, it is > owned by filesystem for Fedora Rawhide (F12) Hmmm!!! I'm not sure how to handle this. We ship a hook there. > 7) The manpages in %files should hava an asterisk appended (*), because in the > Fedora buildsystem, the manpages will be gzipped, so the pattern won't match. Done > Also it is not needed to mark them as %doc, this is already done automatically What should be put as the default. > 8) %{_usr}/sbin should be %{_sbindir} and %{_usr}/share %{_datadir}, also it is > uncommon to use %{_usr} but to use %{_prefix} instead > Done. What about /usr/lib ? > You also need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, because you do not have submitted any > package to Fedora. Here is more information about the whole process: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Going through it. Thank you for reviewing. I am attaching a separate .spec because the spec I ship with the tarball needs to be generic.
Created attachment 361704 [details] spec file updated spec file for laptop-mode-tools
laptop-mode-tools version 1.52 has been released. Any update on this bugzilla ?
Removing the "NotReady" keyword.
There is a release available. 1.53 -- Sat Jan 2 23:42:50 IST 2010 * Add global enable/disable switch for laptop-mode-tools * Add scheduler power saving module for SMT processors. Thanks to John Reilly. * Add a new "Auto Modules" mode which enables all modules whitelisted as auto with a single configuration setting, ENABLE_AUTO_MODULES. * Add LM/NOLM option for Intel SATA Power Management * Do a check before trying to write to the SuperHE Control File BTW, please provide the Source RPM of your package. This way it's much easier for reviewers.
Some comments on your spec file - Remove the comments at the beginning of the file. - I think it would be better to switch to %{_mandir}/man*/*.* for the man pages Man pages should not have %doc and '%docdir %{_mandir}' should be removed - 'disttag' is missing in 'Release' - The %install section is missing Is upstream aware of the bug in the installer?
Hi, I don't intend to maintain this package in Fedora. This request is more for inclusion of laptop-mode-tools into the Fedora project. The spec file I added here, I wrote it keeping in mind all RPM distributions. I ship the spec in the source archive and expect users to build using `rpmbuild -ta`, hopefully working on all RPM distributions. I would appreciate if any of the Fedora Maintainers would work on this.
Since there's no submitter for this package, I'm closing this ticket. You are welcome to add the package to the wishlist at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList. Opening a package review ticket when you don't intend to actually maintain the package is simply not helpful.