Spec URL: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew.spec SRPM URL: http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew-0.4.1-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: QBrew is a homebrewer's recipe calculator. You can create and modify ale and lager recipes as well as calculate gravity, color, and bitterness. QBrew includes a database of styles, grains, hops, and miscellaneous ingredients, plus a brewing tutorial.
Chris, have you already been sponsored? I can't find you in the account system, and in bug #435724 you mentioned you're looking for a sponsor. If this is still the case, please add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the Blocks field above.
I'm not a sponsor but nonetheless some quick comments: - the license tag must be BSD, as file LICENSE and the source headers mention the BSD license (two clause variant) - in %Source0, give the full URL to the tarball - Since with Fedora 10 it's not necessary to define a BuildRoot as rpm does this automatically. However, if you want to support older Fedora releases or EPEL <= 5, you have to define it this way: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - clear the execute flags of the source files, e.g. by adding find src -type f -exec chmod 0644 {} \; to the %prep section - in %files, replace %defattr(-,root,root) by %defattr(-,root,root,-) - add the files AUTHORS, ChangeLog, and TODO to %doc - add the version and revision number to the changelog entry: ... <chris.a.st.pierre> - 0.4.1-1 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-i386/result/qbrew-* qbrew.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog chris.a.st.pierre ['0.4.1-1.fc11', '0.4.1-1'] qbrew.i586: W: invalid-license Any permissive qbrew.src: W: invalid-license Any permissive qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: invalid-license Any permissive qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qbrew-0.4.1/src/textprinter.h qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qbrew-0.4.1/src/textprinter.cpp qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qbrew-0.4.1/src/configure.cpp qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qbrew-0.4.1/src/configure.h qbrew-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/qbrew-0.4.1/src/qbrew.cpp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
(In reply to comment #2) > - in %Source0, give the full URL to the tarball Typo, sorry. I meant the Source0 field should contain the full URL to the tarball. BTW, the spec file in the SRPM and http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew.spec are not identical. :)
Specfile and SRPM updated. Your rpmlint gave loads more errors than mine; is there an extra magical rpmlint config file out there somewhere? Thanks!
(In reply to comment #4) > Your rpmlint gave loads more errors than mine; is there an extra magical > rpmlint config file out there somewhere? No, I don't think so. I just ran rpmlint over all rpm files created by mock (srpm, binary rpm, and rpm containing the debuginfo). As you can see in the output above, most warnings were related to the debuginfo package. Maybe you simply left it out in your check.
taking review
One thing that I immediately see is that there's no history in this review. What I mean by that is whenever you make a change to the package in support of the review request, you need to bump the release and add a changelog entry. When the package finally gets approved, you then import that version exactly as approved - i.e. don't start over at 1. If it takes four iterations in review, then you would import 0.4.1-4.
Some other random tidbits: The upstream tarball includes a stout.qbrew and a paleale.qbrew as example files of what you can do. It would be most helpful to include these as %doc as well. There's a translation to german in the upstream tarball as well. It doesn't seem to build into a .qm even when I extract the tarball and just manually run ./configure ; make - my l10n-fu is non-existent, though. I can reach out for help on that one if you need it. This is really nit-picky, but the upstream source files don't have consistent headers. Some mention that the license is in the tarball, and others explicitly spell out what the license is. The latter is preferred if you can convince upstream to do that in their next release. Not a blocker.
I've updated the specfile and RPM a) with a reconstructed revision history; and b) to include the example .qbrew files in %doc. I browsed through the Makefile, but I couldn't figure out what it was doing or supposed to be doing with the qbrew_de.ts file, so I'll need some help getting that into the RPM. The other issue I've run into is that qbrew looks for its help files in /usr/share/doc/qbrew/, while they're actually in /usr/share/doc/qbrew-E.V-R, so the Help doesn't work. What's the appropriate way to solve this? Patch the source? Thanks!
Forgot to mention: new SRPM URL is http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew-0.4.1-3.fc11.src.rpm
A little bit of googling has shown me the way to Qt translation enlightenment, so the German translation (and any other translations that are added in the future) is now built and installed. This works just dandy with the new package: LC_ALL=de_DE qbrew New spec file is uploaded and new SRPM is at http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew-0.4.1-4.fc11.src.rpm
Following a conversation with Kevin Fenzi, I've made a few changes: - Help files have been moved to /usr/share/doc/qbrew/, which is where qbrew expects them to be. Help now works. - Help files are no longer marked as %doc, since they are required for the software to function. - Simplified the inclusion of things that actually are %doc. A new specfile is up and a new SRPM is at http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew-0.4.1-5.fc11.src.rpm
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches NO - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English NO (see notes) - Spec is legible. OK- Sources match upstream md5sum: $ md5sum qbrew-0.4.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/qbrew-0.4.1.tar.gz bf5009cf5ce5f3ea5069161012966cf7 qbrew-0.4.1.tar.gz bf5009cf5ce5f3ea5069161012966cf7 ../SOURCES/qbrew-0.4.1.tar.gz OK - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. N/A- Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. N/A- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage. N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A - .la files are removed. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. NO - No rpmlint output. qbrew.src:84: W: macro-in-%changelog doc qbrew.src:85: W: macro-in-%changelog doc qbrew.src:90: W: macro-in-%changelog doc You can't include macros (%doc) in the changelog without escaping them - i.e. %%doc. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1732086 OK - Should function as described.1 OK - Should have sane scriptlets. N/A - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Notes: 1. Include a blank line between versions of a changelog entry. As such from one of my packages: * Fri Feb 20 2009 Jon Stanley <jonstanley> - 0.914-4 - Fix *.ttf to *.otf * Fri Feb 20 2009 Jon Stanley <jonstanley> - 0.914-3 - Remove comments from spec - Something else - Something 3 2. Include the LICENSE file as %doc (as well as in addition to where it already is if it's actually needed by the help) Just fix these things and it should be good!
Fixed and fixed. New spec file is up, and new SRPM is at http://www.nebrwesleyan.edu/people/stpierre/qbrew-0.4.1-5.fc11.src.rpm
Aside from the fact that your link was wrong (the SRPM is -6 instead of -5 :D), that package looks good. APPROVED, sorry for the delay.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qbrew Short Description: A Brewing Recipe Calculator Owners: cstpierre Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC:
cvs done.
qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11
Tag request submitted for F12. All appears to be well in the world.
qbrew-0.4.1-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: qbrew New Branches: F-13
Too early to request F13 branches. Actually, with no-frozen-rawhide, I don't think there will be any early branching at all.