Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~splinux/dwm/dwm.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~splinux/dwm/dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: dwm is an extremely fast, small, and dynamic window manager for X
Please note that I am not a packager, so this review is not binding. - = N/A X = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated MUST [X] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. => 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [X] 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. [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [X] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. => tested on Fedora 12 x86_64. [X] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [-] 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. [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [-] 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. [X] A 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. [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [X] Each package must consistently use macros. [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [X] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [-] Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-] 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. [-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [!] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. => see attached patches to .spec and .desktop to fix that. [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [X] At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. => Not done. However, I tested using koji: $ koji build --scratch dist-f13 dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Uploading srpm: dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:02 22.25 KiB 10.87 KiB/sec Created task: 2162289 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2162289 None Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 2162289 build (dist-f13, dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm): free 2162289 build (dist-f13, dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm): free -> open (ppc04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2162291 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, x86_64): free 2162292 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, i686): free 2162291 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2162292 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, i686): free -> open (x86-02.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2162291 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed 2162292 buildArch (dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-02.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed 2162289 build (dist-f13, dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm): open (ppc04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed 2162289 build (dist-f13, dwm-5.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm) completed successfully [X] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [X] 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. [X] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
Created attachment 411413 [details] fix spec file
Created attachment 411414 [details] fix desktop file
[X] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. should read: [?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
In fact, you were right in using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/xsessions/ as PATH for the desktop file, but it still _must_ be installed using desktop-file-install. Could you please post an updated spec file? Thanks
Hello, the spec file is updated but there is a bug, we can't choose DWM with GDM... Spec: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm.spec SRPM: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm-5.7.2-2.fc13.src.rpm
Created attachment 411671 [details] fix dwm.desktop file PATH
Sorry, my fault: * the first patch broke the path to the dwm.desktop file (see comment 5) * I used startx with .xinitrc to test dwm, not gdm. The attached patch should fix the issue, and dwm appears in gdm. Could you please post updated spec and src.rpm packages?
Ok, it's updated :-) Spec: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm.spec SRPM: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm-5.7.2-3.fc13.src.rpm
I am not sure what kind of Type and Category (in the .desktop file) this belongs to. Other than that, it looks good. Thanks!
Hello Did you have some news about the desktop file ?
Update to 5.8.2 SPEC: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm.spec SRPM: http://splinux.fedorapeople.org/dwm/dwm-5.8.2-1.fc13.src.rpm
Hi Damien, It seems that window managers don't use Type nor Category (see the icewm and fluxbox packages for example). Could you update the desktop file in the package? Your current dwm.spec passes rpmlint: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thanks
And your current package does as well: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to comment #5) > In fact, you were right in using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/xsessions/ as PATH > for the desktop file, but it still _must_ be installed using > desktop-file-install. No, this rule only applies to desktop files that create menu entries. We have other desktop files for xsession entries, xfce4-panel plugins, kde services and many more. These are not necessarily flowing the freedesktop specs and thus cannot be installed with desktop-file-utils. This means that the desktop file is ok for this package. But there is another problem: Quoting from http://dwm.suckless.org/ Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions. There are some distributions that provide binary packages though. Damien, are you sure you want to package this? If you are willing to maintain this, I'll go ahead and do an official review, but IMHO you really should think about this twice.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 643375 ***