Spec URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra-1.2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Avra is an assembler for Atmel's AVR 8-bit RISC microcontollers. It is mostly compatible with Atmel's own assembler, but provides new features such as better macro support and additional preprocessor directives. This is my second Fedora package. I'm still looking for sponsorship.
Looks fine to me. Just a couple of notes: - you should preserve the timestamps of the converted files: dos2unix -k AUTHORS iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 README -o README.new touch -r README README.new mv README.new README - remove INSTALL from %doc - NEWS doesn't contain any useful information either. You can drop it too.
Made changes as per above. Spec URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra-1.2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
I'll do the review. If we get it in time for F-12, I'll add avra to the FEL-12 Livedvd.
would you also package http://sourceforge.net/projects/side4linux/ ?
#001: Add Examples to %doc #002: Extract AVR000.zip and add the *.inc to /usr/share/avra-%{version} #003: remove "avra" binary in %prep before starting any processes
Changes made as per above. Spec URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra-1.2.3-2.fc10.src.rpm As for side4linux, I guess I can package it as well. However, it's not something I plan to use myself, so I'm not sure if I would be the best person to maintain it.
Alex, could you please make an unofficial review of this small package ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=524545 I just want to see if you understood the basic RPM packaging. However your package looks good, I just need some time to verify the examples included. I'm looking forward to add avra on the FEL 12 Livedvd.
#001: the following should be in the %prep section aclocal autoconf automake -a # Fix up encoding of documentation dos2unix -k AUTHORS iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 README -o README.new touch -r README README.new mv README.new README # Unpack include files unzip AVR000.zip -d include # Fix permissions and encoding of examples chmod 644 Example/* dos2unix -k Example/* #002: %doc For example, do the following %doc Example instead %doc Example/* This will preserve the examples in a separate directory and not mixing it with other files #003: use %{_datadir} macro instead of /usr/share #004: Directory ownership in %files, add %dir %{_datadir/%{name}-%{version} #004: Preserve timestamps during make install process by adding INSTALL="%{_bindir}/install -p" to your make install Also add "-p" to your install -m 0644 *.inc ..... #005: Add a small on %description stating that fedora also ships some deviced definition *.inc files in %{_datadir/%{name}-%{version}. It will be helpful to the user
All requested changes made (as per above). Spec URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://silxnet.org/~alex/fedora/avra/avra-1.2.3-3.fc10.src.rpm
Can you please upload the srpm to your FASUSERNAME.fedorapeople.org space please ? I'm having timeouts from your current host space.
(In reply to comment #10) > Can you please upload the srpm to your FASUSERNAME.fedorapeople.org space > please ? > I'm having timeouts from your current host space. Done - I forgot that I had access to that service now. Spec URL: http://musolinoa.fedorapeople.org/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://musolinoa.fedorapeople.org/avra/avra-1.2.3-3.fc10.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #8) > #004: Preserve timestamps during make install process by adding > INSTALL="%{_bindir}/install -p" to your make install It should rather be : make INSTALL="%{_bindir}/install -p" install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Please correct it, i'll complete the review as soon as possible.
Done. Spec URL: http://musolinoa.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/avra/avra.spec SRPM URL: http://musolinoa.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/avra/avra-1.2.3-4.fc10.src.rpm
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (GPLv2+) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: 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 is included in %doc. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i586. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.: No locales in this package - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package doesn't include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i586. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: Those scriptlets used are sane. Approved
Let me know when you have built it for F-12, I'll add avra to the FEL Livedvd.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: avra Short Description: ATmel AVR 8-bit RISC microcontroller assembler Owners: musolinoa Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12 InitialCC:
cvs done.
(In reply to comment #15) > Let me know when you have built it for F-12, I'll add avra to the FEL Livedvd. Built successfully for F-10, F-11, F-12.
Push avra and picprog to fedora stable repositories https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ don't forget to add the bugzilla number of both package reviews to your package submission. Bodhi will automatically close these bugzilla reports.
avra-1.2.3-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avra-1.2.3-4.fc10
avra-1.2.3-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avra-1.2.3-4.fc11
avra-1.2.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
avra-1.2.3-4.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: avra New Branches: el6 Owners: musolinoa
Git done (by process-git-requests).