SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt.spec SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.el6.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2065370 rpmlint is ... $ rpmlint /home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.el6.src.rpm imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, conceptualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, conceptualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US VMware -> Firmware, Stemware, Vaporware imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Xen -> Xe, En, Xes imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual imvirt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Which shoul all be OK.
Source is not URL and no comments why and how get it.
Fixed. Spec and srpm is on same location.
Hi Miroslav, First I think its much easier for reviewers if you always bump the release numbers during the review. Here's a review: Review: imvirt Date: 21st March 2011 Mock Build: F14, x86_64 builds. * YES: rpmlint output rpmlint SPECS/imvirt.spec RPMS/x86_64/imvirt-* SRPMS/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.fc14.src.rpm imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual imvirt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) virtualizations -> conceptualizations, visualizations, actualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualization -> actualization, visualization, contextualization imvirt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualized -> ritualized, actualized, virtual 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. All of these words are in very common usage within this context. They will become words soon enough. * YES: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * YES: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * NO: Packaging Guidelines. The Source tar ball is imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz which is presumably a pre-release to 0.9.0. This needs to be handled in the release. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages * YES: Approved license in .spec file. GPLv2+ * COMMENT: License on Source code. CLearly licensed this way. * YES: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. COPYFILE file present. * YES: Written in American English. * YES: Spec file legible. * YES: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz 698d022b778aaf0d07ba67fa357da464 ../SOURCES/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz Is the Source URL possible to define exactly the example here? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net * YES: Build on one architecture. * YES: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. * YES: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * YES: Handle locales properly. * YES: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. * YES: No bundled copies of system libraries. * YES: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. * YES: A package must own all directories that it creates * YES: No duplicate files in %files listings. * YES: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * YES: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * YES: Each package must consistently use macros. * YES: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * YES: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs. * YES: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * YES: Header files must be in a -devel package. NO headers. * YES: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No statics. * YES: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' No pkgconfig * YES: Then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. No .sos * YES: devel packages must require the exact base package None * YES: No .la libtool archives None * YES: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file No gui * YES: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None are. * YES: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * YES: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Yes. So just handling of the fact this is a pre-release and if you can change the URL do so.
I think Vendor: IBH IT-Service GmbH (http://www.ibh.de/) should come out.
SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/ SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-0.1.pre1.el6.src.rpm I fixed that release tag according to guidelines. I removed Vendor tag. But I did not change Source0 url since that template does not work in this case. I tried http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0.tar.gz and both returns 404 not found. So I will stick with that one which works.
APPROVED but could you add a "-p" to install -m644 -D ImVirt.pm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{perl_vendorlib}/ImVirt.pm post review to preserve the timestamp. Steve
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: imvirt Short Description: Detects several virtualizations Owners: msuchy Branches: F-12, F-13, EL-5 InitialCC:
(In reply to comment #5) > But I did not change Source0 url since that template does not work in this > case. > I tried > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0-pre1.tar.gz > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/imvirt/imvirt-0.9.0.tar.gz > and both returns 404 not found. So I will stick with that one which works. Try this one: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/apt-dater/%{name}-%{version}-pre1.tar.gz
that url works. thx kalev.
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).