Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble.spec SRPM URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gscribble/files/gscribble/0.0.2/gscribble-0.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm/download or http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: GScribble is a desktop client for blogging. The client is written in Python and PyGtk. Currently it supports Wordpress only, but it will support Blogger soon. With the new release GScribble supports HTTP proxy also. The current version is 0.0.2. Note: This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I am the only developer of the the project currently.
I have used rpmlint on the rpm I made for the package and I have fixed the error that I got.
*** Bug 524378 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Just a couple of quick notes: - the license tag must be GPLv2+ - adapt the URL field according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net - you can drop python-setuptools and pygtk2-devel from BuildRequires - for better legibility, add a blank line between the changelog revisions
You should also replace the shebang #!/usr/bin/env python with #!/usr/bin/python (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Script_Interpreters_%28draft%29), e.g. by adding sed -i 's|^#!/usr/bin/env python|#!/usr/bin/python|' gscribble to the %prep section.
Some more comments - gscribble seems to be a GUI application, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files - AUTHORS and ChangeLog are missing in the %doc section
I have made the necessary changes to the spec file and the srpm, I have uploaded the new files. spec: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble.spec srpm: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
Some notes: * %define -> %global - Now Fedora suggests to use %global instead of %define for some reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define * Requires - Please check the dependency for python module related packages (this cannot be detected automatically by rpmbuild and you have to investigate this manually by yourself). ! Example /usr/bin/gscribble contains: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 try: 17 import pygtk 18 pygtk.require('2.0') 19 except: 20 print "Install PyGtk >= 2.0." 21 sys.exit(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------- This means that this package should have "Requiers: pygtk2". * CFLAGS on noarch package - If this package is noarch package, setting CFLAGS is not needed. * Duplicate files - Document files are installed under both /usr/share/gscribble/docs/ and /usr/share/doc/gscribble-0.0.2/. ! Choosing /usr/share/doc/gscribble-0.0.2/ is preferred, however please check if files under /usr/share/gscribble/docs/ can really be removed. ! By the way usually "INSTALL" file is not needed. This file is needed for people to compile/install softwares by themselves and not needed for people using rpm. * Some notes for source codes - By the way /usr/bin/gscribble contains: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 __project__ = 'GScribble' 32 __website__ = 'http://sourceforge.net/projects/gscribble' 33 __version__ = '0.0.1' 34 __authors__ = ['Roshan Kumar Singh <singh.roshan08>',] --------------------------------------------------------------------- But version seems 0.0.2?
Thank you for pointing out so many errors. Then I decided to read the packaging guideline again. According to this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires, I should not require to explicitly give the version of python-devel package in spec file since the package version of python-devel shipped with Fedora 11 is 2.6. I have fixed other issues and updated the files. Link: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/
Please change the release number of your spec file every time you modify it to avoid confusion. Also it is appreciated that youpost the full URLs of your spec file and srpm.
okay, i will take care of these things now on.
4f03d95bf88b6591c84b518877f5719d gscribble-0.0.2.tar.gz fb8be4164af8b1d1ae8bcc9e80f5e6bd New/gscribble-0.0.2.tar.gz - What happened here? * If you are not the upstream of this package, you should not modify the tarball directly but create patches if needed. * If you are the upstream, changing the tarball without changing version is confusing for users (including people using this software on other distros). If you want to modify the tarball you must change the version. Please restore the original 0.0.2 tarball and release the new one.
> - What happened here? > * If you are not the upstream of this package, you should not modify > the tarball directly but create patches if needed. > * If you are the upstream, changing the tarball without changing > version is confusing for users (including people using this software > on other distros). > If you want to modify the tarball you must change the version. > Please restore the original 0.0.2 tarball and release the new one. I realized this problem, I am working on some features which are not ready now, so making a release with new version number now is not possible. However I was wondering if I release a new tar with version 0.0.2-1, what should I name the rpm.
(In reply to comment #12) > I realized this problem, I am working on some features which are not ready now, > so making a release with new version number now is not possible. However I was > wondering if I release a new tar with version 0.0.2-1, what should I name the > rpm. How about versionin as 0.0.2.1, 0.0.2.2, ...... and 0.0.3 when you think it is ready? (then rpm EVR (epoch-version-release) should be 0.0.2.1-1 -> 0.0.2.1-2 -> ... -> 0.0.2.2-1 .... )
(In reply to comment #13) > How about versionin as 0.0.2.1, 0.0.2.2, ...... and 0.0.3 when you > think it is ready? (then rpm EVR (epoch-version-release) should be > 0.0.2.1-1 -> 0.0.2.1-2 -> ... -> 0.0.2.2-1 .... ) As suggested, I have released a new version 0.0.2.1, and have accordingly made new rpms. SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1.spec RPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm SPRM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
For 0.0.2.1-1: * Requires - For this, please check my previous comments. (In reply to comment #7) > * Requires > - Please check the dependency for python module related packages (this > cannot be detected automatically by rpmbuild and you have to investigate > this manually by yourself). > ! Example > /usr/bin/gscribble contains: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 16 try: > 17 import pygtk > 18 pygtk.require('2.0') > 19 except: > 20 print "Install PyGtk >= 2.0." > 21 sys.exit(1) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This means that this package should have "Requiers: pygtk2". * Version specific dependency - Would you explain why you want to write the version dependency ">= 2.0" for BR: python-devel? Note that currently supported branches on Fedora have at least python 2.5.2.
> * Version specific dependency > - Would you explain why you want to write the version dependency > ">= 2.0" for BR: python-devel? > Note that currently supported branches on Fedora have at least > python 2.5.2. I saw a similar application which needed PyQt4-devel, so I thought it may be needed. Well the version is because I have used many functions which are specfific to version >= 2.0
(In reply to comment #16) > Well the version is because I have used many functions which are specfific to > version >= 2.0 As I said above currently all python package on Fedora is >= 2.0 (in fact >= 2.5.2), so this is just redundant. And also please fix the other issues.
> As I said above currently all python package on Fedora is >= 2.0 (in fact > >= 2.5.2), so this is just redundant. So I have not mentioned the version in spec file. I had not written it to target a particular distro, so I think it should be there, it wont cause any harm. I have fixed all the issues discussed in earlier messages.
(In reply to comment #18) > > As I said above currently all python package on Fedora is >= 2.0 (in fact > > >= 2.5.2), so this is just redundant. > I had initially not written version of python-devel in spec file, later I was later suggested to write the version. So should I remove the version of python-devel from the spec file?
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > > As I said above currently all python package on Fedora is >= 2.0 (in fact > > > >= 2.5.2), so this is just redundant. > > I had initially not written version of python-devel in spec file, later I was > later suggested to write the version. So should I remove the version of > python-devel from the spec file? - I suggest to remove this. Guidelines related to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ------------------------------------------------------------ For instance in the example above, when no current Fedora release shipped with libfubar < 1.2.3-7, it is no longer necessary to list the explicit, versioned requirement. ------------------------------------------------------------ (In reply to comment #18) > I have fixed all the issues discussed in earlier messages. - Please fix this (the following comments are from me) (In reply to comment #7) > Some notes: > * Requires > - Please check the dependency for python module related packages (this > cannot be detected automatically by rpmbuild and you have to investigate > this manually by yourself). > ! Example > /usr/bin/gscribble contains: > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 16 try: > 17 import pygtk > 18 pygtk.require('2.0') > 19 except: > 20 print "Install PyGtk >= 2.0." > 21 sys.exit(1) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This means that this package should have "Requiers: pygtk2". Note that here I am talking about "Requires", not "BuildRequires".
* Removed the version from python-devel * Added pygtk2 to Requires SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.spec RPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
Please: (In reply to comment #9) > Please change the release number of your spec file every > time you modify it to avoid confusion.
(In reply to comment #22) > Please: > > (In reply to comment #9) > > Please change the release number of your spec file every > > time you modify it to avoid confusion. Should I change the version of the RPM (0.0.2.1-2, 0.0.2.1-2), I appended a version to the spec file.
(In reply to comment #23) > Should I change the version of the RPM (0.0.2.1-2, 0.0.2.1-2), I appended a > version to the spec file. What do you mean here? Anyway please post the URL of the new srpm (i.e. srpm which has newer EVR)
(In reply to comment #24) > What do you mean here? Anyway please post the URL of the new srpm (i.e. > srpm which has newer EVR) Latest specs and rpms: SPEC: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.spec RPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm SRPM: http://lug.nitdgp.ac.in/users/roshan/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11.src.rpm I meant that everytime I create a new rpm, should I change the version also ? Till now I have been using the same version.
(In reply to comment #25) > I meant that everytime I create a new rpm, should I change the version also ? - As I said I am asking you to change the "release" number every time you modify your spec file (i.e. if version number stays as 0.0.2.1, EVR of rpm should be chaged as 0.0.2.1-1%{?dist} -> 0.0.2.1-2%{?dist} -> 0.0.2.1-3%{?dist}
(In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #25) > > I meant that everytime I create a new rpm, should I change the version also ? > - As I said I am asking you to change the "release" number every time you > modify > your spec file (i.e. if version number stays as 0.0.2.1, EVR of rpm should > be chaged as 0.0.2.1-1%{?dist} -> 0.0.2.1-2%{?dist} -> 0.0.2.1-3%{?dist} Thank you, I was confused over it for quite sometime.
So would you change the release number?
(In reply to comment #28) > So would you change the release number? As of now, let it be like this, if I need to make any further changes to the spec file, I will definitely change the release number.
Okay, now: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on my wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mtasaka#B._Review_request_tickets (Check "No one is reviewing") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------ You are the upstream of this package so you may not want to submit another review request, however still I want to see at least one pre-review done by you.
(In reply to comment #30) > Okay, now: Its a great day (actually night) for me. I will submit "2 more review requests". I maintain one package and the other is something that I have to compile from source always whenever I format my laptop. I have written the spec files. But now that I know that a lot has to be done in the spec, I will check it properly for possible errors.
ping?
i am having exams right now, i will be free on 30th november. Please tell me what is to be done now.
Current status is that I am waiting for your other review requests submit (as you commented so on the comment 31)
I have written the spec, I want to know how to determine the default package version of the libraries in the BuildRequire as shipped by fedora, so that I can remove the versions. I dont remember if I have installed/updated any from the update repository. These are the packages wordnet-devel, glib2-devel, gtk2-devel, libnotify-devel, dbus-glib-devel
(In reply to comment #35) > I have written the spec, I want to know how to determine the default package > version of the libraries in the BuildRequire as shipped by fedora, so that I > can remove the versions. If you are asking here if explicit version dependency is needed for BuildRequires such as BuildRequires: gtk2-devel ">= 2.0", very simply saying it is basically unneeded.
(In reply to comment #36) > (In reply to comment #35) > > If you are asking here if explicit version dependency is needed > for BuildRequires such as BuildRequires: gtk2-devel ">= 2.0", > very simply saying it is basically unneeded. okay, being specific the dependencies are: wordnet-devel >= 3.0, glib2-devel >= 2.14, gtk2-devel >= 2.12, libnotify-devel >= 0.4.1, dbus-glib-devel >= 0.74 which ones can i omit
(In reply to comment #37) > okay, being specific the dependencies are: > wordnet-devel >= 3.0, glib2-devel >= 2.14, gtk2-devel >= 2.12, libnotify-devel > >= 0.4.1, dbus-glib-devel >= 0.74 > > which ones can i omit All unneeded (on currently supported Fedora branches)
Here is my new review request for 'artha': https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542754
Now I am sponsoring you and will approve this package. -------------------------------------------------------- This package (gscribble) is APPROVED by mtasaka -------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". If you want to import this package into Fedora 11/12, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
I ran koji to create the package http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1852133. Is this okay? What is this section used for http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_CVS_and_Set_Owner .
(In reply to comment #41) > I ran koji to create the package > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1852133. > Is this okay? - If you are asking if your package is okay or not, then yes. > What is this section used for > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_CVS_and_Set_Owner > . - As written there, please check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure and write a CVS request for new package on this bug and set fedora-cvs flag to "?".
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gscribble Short Description: A desktop client for blogging Owners: roshansingh Branches: F-11 F-12
cvs done.
I have built gscribble for devel, F-11 and F-12, will make request in Bodhi now.
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc12
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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 gscribble'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-13325
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.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 gscribble'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-13388
Closing.
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
gscribble-0.0.2.1-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.