Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl-0.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) support for Erlang. This is a requirement for enabling kerberos-auth support in ejabberd.
http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl-0.1-2.fc12.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Feb 3 2010 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> 0.1-2 - Fix for EPEL Koji scratchbuild for EPEL 5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1961561 Koji scratchbuild for F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1961567
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review Sources used when checking: [Reset@localhost koji]$ md5sum libisds.spec 32ac2450de961b8f7dbd5014716f362c libisds.spec [Reset@localhost koji]$ md5sum libisds-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm 4f5082969d4880f4622c4eff93d55c6a libisds-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm johanka:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/erlang-esasl-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. johanka:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/erlang-esasl-0.1-2.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. johanka:rpmbuild$ + MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . + MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license LGPLv2+ This is wrong ... src/esasl.erl is not LGPLv2+ c_src/gsasl_drv.c is correct .. that's LGPLv2+ + MUST: If (and only if) 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 must be included in %doc. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task From srpm: johanka:SOURCES$ md5sum esasl-0.1.tar.gz d1803057ee0c3f797c1605d99c7525b4 esasl-0.1.tar.gz From upstream: johanka:rpmbuild$ md5sum esasl-0.1.tar.gz d1803057ee0c3f797c1605d99c7525b4 esasl-0.1.tar.gz = MATCHES + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - tested on x86_64, no problems 0 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 + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines Build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1988076) 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro No locales 0 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. Not appllicable 0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries 0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker - MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory Package should probably own %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ Maybe plain %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ could stand for the almost all %files section? + MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content 0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' 0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package 0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Please correct the indicated issues before approving.
Thanks! Fixed both issues: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-esasl-0.1-3.fc12.src.rpm
Yeah, fixed. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-esasl Short Description: Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) support for Erlang Owners: peter Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 EL-4 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
erlang-esasl-0.1-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-3.fc11
erlang-esasl-0.1-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-3.fc12
erlang-esasl-0.1-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-3.el5
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc11
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc12
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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 erlang-esasl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2010-0223
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.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 erlang-esasl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1675
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.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 erlang-esasl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2010-1250
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-esasl-0.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.