Spec URL: http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg.spec SRPM URL: http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg-0.72-5.fc13.src.rpm Description: Pisg is an IRC statistics generator. It takes IRC logfiles and turns them into nice looking stats.
New Spec file and SRPM Spec URL http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg.spec SRPM URL http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg-0.72-6.fc13.src.rpm md5: 1621c6958a1be6c6d6b08242d0309bdb pisg-0.72-6.fc13.src.rpm b8af90f36dc6ef0d4c14fadb9068bc0a pisg.spec
According to [1] I unfortunately can not do an official formal review, since Jens needs a sponsor first. I'll do an inofficial review anyway. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored
(In reply to comment #2) > According to [1] I unfortunately can not do an official formal review, since > Jens needs a sponsor first. I'll do an inofficial review anyway. > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored If you are not a sponsor, please don't assign this bug to yourself and reset fedora-cvs flag, otherwise sponsor members won't notice this bug. Pre-reviews are always welcome, though.
s/fedora-cvs/fedora-review/
$ rpmlint pisg.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint pisg-0.72-6.fc12.src.rpm pisg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logfiles -> log files, log-files, misfiles 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch.rpm pisg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logfiles -> log files, log-files, misfiles 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This spelling issue should be fixed before uploading the package to CVS. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: see above binary RPM: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [!] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv2+, scripts/dropegg.pl is not clear [x] License file is included in %doc. [!] Specfile is legible and written in AE rpmlint claims the spelling of "logfiles". See above. [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: be7a535dc1102eede2e43f0046b4d48effb1d18a [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F12/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. this is a noarch package. [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Found issues: * scripts/dropegg.pl is not written by Morten Brix Pedersen claiming Copyright, but without any licensing hint. You maybe should clarify the license for the file with upstream first. * The "Provides:" for the installed Perl modules are missing. The package is not installable in this state. Installation fails with message: --> Fehlende Abhängigkeit: perl(Pisg::HTMLGenerator) wird benötigt von Paket pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch (/pisg-0.72-6.fc12.noarch) Didn't found anything else. Looks good for me.
Spec URL: http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg.spec SRPM URL: http://jensm.fedorapeople.org/pisg-0.72-7.fc13.src.rpm md5: fb82f8f9e5454d5714608e515f2c51c2 pisg.spec 25f9f3ef1ed4c6bef67174347314ef3f pisg-0.72-7.fc13.src.rpm I substitute in the %%install-section 'install -p -d' through 'cp -rp' because it didn't copy the provided perl-modules to /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Pisg/ RPM finds the modules then automatically.
pisg is already in Fedora. ;) (Although it was recently orphaned) Do you have any other package submissions at this time? I can look at those and you could possibly take over maintaining pisg once you are sponsored. ;)
(In reply to comment #7) > pisg is already in Fedora. ;) I know > (Although it was recently orphaned) That's why i taken over pisg :-) > Do you have any other package submissions at this time? No, this is my first > I can look at those and > you could possibly take over maintaining pisg once you are sponsored. ;)
Well, while I have not checked this package yet, however http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored shows that 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". 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) So please submit another review request or do at least one pre-review of other person's review request, and write the bug number on this bug report. 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
Mamoru-san, thanks a lot for the links. A few days ago i submitted an other review request, but with no answer at this time.
(In reply to comment #9) <snip> > So please submit another review request or do at least one > pre-review of other person's review request, and write the > bug number on this bug report. <snap> #564588 #566379
(In reply to comment #7) > pisg is already in Fedora. ;) > > (Although it was recently orphaned) > > Do you have any other package submissions at this time? I can look at those and > you could possibly take over maintaining pisg once you are sponsored. ;) To Kevin: I checked Jens' package (in comment 6) and it seems in good shape. Also I checked Jen's another review request (bug 564588) and it can be approved soon, so if you are to release the ownership of pisg I am going to sponsor Jens. How do you think?
Yes, thats excellent. ;) I will go release ownership of it now. Jens: If you have any questions or issues or would like a co-maintainer, I would be happy to help you with pisg.
To Kevin: Yes, i would like to be co-maintainer of pisg. I'd really appreciate that. Thanks in advance.
I just freed it up in pkgdb. Feel free to take ownership of it. I can add myself in as co-maintainer afer you do so.
Okay, thank you, Kevin. Now I am sponsoring Jens. Jens, please visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/pisg and take over the maintainership of this package. Setting fedora-review to plus. Dominic, thank you for pre-review.
The fedora-cvs flag is set, but I can find no CVS request to process.
fedora-cvs flag is not needed currently. This package already exists on Fedora and the owner is already changed correctly. (CVS request not needed either) Jens, please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Install the Client Tools (Koji)". Then next "Check out the module" and import your srpm into Fedora CVS and rebuild them on koji. And also check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
Closing. Please request to move F-13 testing packages into stable when you think it is okay.