Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-0.1.rc2.fc12.src.rpm Description: A fast, easy and free Twitter client
Just some quick comments on your spec file. - You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory - Please follow the guidelines for the installation of the .desktop file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files - Can you please take a look at your BRs . Isn't gettext needed by intltool and didn't libgee-devel pulls in libgee. The rpmlint output [fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino* pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-0.2.rc3.fc12.src.rpm Changes: - Update to 0.1.0rc3 - Fix BR - Added desktop file validate for pino.desktop
Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Changes: - Update to 0.1.0
(In reply to comment #1) > - You need to add 'hicolor-icon-theme' as a requirement to avoid issues with > the ownership of the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory Requiring hicolor-icon-theme is not strictly needed because gtk2 already requires it. It is however recommended. > - Can you please take a look at your BRs . Isn't gettext needed by intltool not on older releases such as EPEL, so I suggest to leave it in. > The rpmlint output > > [fab@localhost i686]$ rpmlint pino* > pino-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources This one is fixed in with the new package. (In reply to comment #3) > - Update to 0.1.0 Please update to 0.1.1 and then I will review the package. Some more comments: - Timestamps of both the spec and the source are one year in the future. Please take care of the timestamps, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - (Try to) Use Fedoras waf instead of the included version to build the package. - %description should be more detailed and end with a dot. - Don't hardcode /usr in --prefix=/usr. Use the %{_prefix} macro instead, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros - You could use a few more wildcards: Instead of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/mentions.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/actions/timeline.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino.svg %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/pino_fresh.svg use %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/*/*.svg But this is minor and up to you. The rest looks fine, package works as described. Looking forward to see it in Fedora.
Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Changes: - Update to 0.1.1 - Using waf as BR - Updated description - Using rpmmacros in build section
OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/pino-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} FIX - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 005215400dcd00844558fbbe9b30fc46 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros: %{buildroot} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - 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 that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly validated with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - docs complete Issues: - The timestamp of Source0 still doesn't match SourceURL. Please use a download manager that preserves timestamps, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - Build is not verbose, please use "waf build -v" - You are not using parallel make, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Parallel_make - your macro usage is not consistent. You are using both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Please only use one.
We are almost done, the 4 issues are easy to fix. Please do this when you update to 0.1.2 (just released) and then I'd like to have a final glance at the package before I approve it.
Update package: Spec URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino.spec SRPM URL: http://allisson.fedorapeople.org/packages/pino/pino-0.1.2-1.fc12.src.rpm Changes: - Update to 0.1.2 - Fixed macro consistency - Changed Waf build to use verbose mode - Fixed timestamp for Source0 - Use Parallel make for build
OK, mdsum or Source0 is now e1418a1ee48c754a1c7ac76ad205f571 and matches. All other items are fixed too. The package is APPROVED. Good job!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pino Short Description: A fast, easy and free Twitter client Owners: allisson Branches: F-11 F-12
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py)
pino-0.1.2-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.