Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp-0.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Prints X selection to standard out
[mrunge@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/sselp-0.2-1.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/sselp-0.2-1.fc13.i686.rpm sselp.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sselp Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. There is no man page. Packaging guidelines state *SHOULD* have a man page, but it's not required.
Hi, some comments before a potential review: - libX11-devel at least is missing as a BuildRequires - sselp is not compiled using the Fedora standard flags. CFLAGS must be set to %{optflags}. To fix it, you can add this line in your %prep section: sed -i "s/CFLAGS = .*/CFLAGS = %{optflags} \${INCS} \${CPPFLAGS}/" config.mk - your patch can be dropped if you call "make install" like this in your %install section: make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=%{_prefix} - no debuginfos are generated, because of the "-s" option set in LDFLAGS (see config.mk). To fix it, add also this line in %prep: sed -i "/LDFLAGS/ s/-s//" config.mk
Mohamed, thank you for your very valuable answer! I've changed the spec according to your info: SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp-0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm
Great :) I see no more issues... unless my suggestions can be improved ^^. Since this package has already a reviewer, I yield my place... But I stay tuned ;)
Since cassmodiah let me take this review on #fedora-devel, here it is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606288 * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK (no critical issue): $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/sselp-0.2-2.fc13.src.rpm sselp.src:19: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags} $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/sselp-0.2-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm sselp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sselp $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/sselp-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines OK (MIT) * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK * 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. OK * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK * 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK (RPM source archive has the same MD5 sum than the one downloaded: b74d6558790d8df897db40bca90bc0f6) * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK (tested on koji, OK on F13 and rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2268988) * 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. 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. N/A * MUST: 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. OK * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK * 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. N/A * MUST: 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. OK * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK * MUST: 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). N/A * MUST: 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. OK * 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' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A * 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. N/A * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. N/A * 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. 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. N/A * MUST: 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. OK * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK This package is APPROVED!
(sorry for the BZ link on top of the previous post, a bad copy-paste)
Thanks to both of you!
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: sselp Short Description: Prints X selection to standard out Owners: mrunge Branches: F-13
Two remarks: - Description does not end with a dot - make is not verbose, so cflags cannot be verified:
(In reply to comment #9) > Two remarks: > - Description does not end with a dot > - make is not verbose, so cflags cannot be verified: Sorry for missing these issues. Mathias: to fix the nonverbose compilation, you can add this in %prep: sed -i "s/@\${CC}/\${CC}/" Makefile Anyway the flags may be OK with the fixes suggested above, the Makefile is simple enough to check it. Anyway, logs are better for proof ^^
Thanks for the hint, it's fixed in the following version (and not to late for initial cvs) SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/sselp-0.2-3.fc13.src.rpm
Please remember to assign the ticket to the person doing the review. CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
sselp-0.2-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sselp-0.2-3.fc13
sselp-0.2-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 sselp'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sselp-0.2-3.fc13
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sselp New Branches: EL-6 Owners: mrunge sselp is required by package dmenu (in newer versions), which shall be included in EL-6
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
sselp-0.2-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.