Spec URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: wordgroupz is vocabulary building application written in gtk and python. Here, you can store the words that you come across in groups. Thus you can remember words easily based on its group. This will be helpful for learning vocabulary for some standard tests.
Some notes: * BuildRoot - On Fedora "BuildRoot" tag is no longer used and can be removed (even if rpmlint may complain if you remove it) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - If you want to import this package also into EPEL, BuildRoot tag is still needed. * License tag - As far as I checked the whole codes, the license tag should be "GPLv2+". * BuildRequires for python - Please use "BuildRequires: python2" instead of "BR: python", c.f. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#BuildRequires * BuildRequires v.s. Requires - Please check if the dependencies you wrote in the spec file is for BuildRequires or for Requires. - BuildRequires are the packages required when rebuilding srpm, while Requires are the packages required when installing the rebuilt binary rpm (i.e. when using the software). For example, actually your srpm builds only with "BR: python2": http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2289162 However without pygtk2 this package won't work (i.e. wordgroupz won't run), this means pygtk2 should be in "Requires", not in "BuildRequires". ! On F-12+, sqlite3 module is already in "python" package, so "Requires: python-sqlite" is redundant. Also gtk2 package is always required by pygtk2, so "Requires: gtk2" is unneeded. * CFLAGS - This is noarch package, so 'env CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is not needed. * Installing desktop files - When a package contains desktop file, "desktop-file-{install,validate}" must be used and "BR: desktop-file-utils" must be included: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage * Desktop file - "Application" category in desktop file is deprecated and should be removed. * Directory ownership issue - Please make it sure that all directories which are newly created when installing this package are correctly owned by this package: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes - The directory %{_datadir}/wordgroupz/ itself is not owned by any packages. * Permission - rpmlint complains: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wordgroupz.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/wordgroupz/wordgroupz.glade wordgroupz.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/applications/wordgroupz.desktop ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is because these files have executable permissin (0755) but it must not. Also .png file has 0755 permission, which should be 0644. Please fix the permission.
ping?
(In reply to comment #2) > ping? pong I was working on some new code of wordGroupz. Will update the rpms. Thanks.
Thanks Mamoru Tasaka for reviewing Today I released wordgroupz v 0.3b. I changed the SPEC file as suggested. Spec URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM URL: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3b-1.fc13.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2346894
Updated wordgroupz spec today. Included new dependencies: python-BeautifulSoup, gstreamer-python, gstreamer-python-devel
I have not checked your latest srpm yet, however if you modified your spec file, please also upload the corresponsing srpm.
For 0.3b-1: * BuildRoot tag - As I said in the previous comment, BuildRoot tag is no longer needed on Fedora, only needed on EPEL-5. If you want to import this package only into Fedora 12-14, please remove BuildRoot tag. * BuildRequires - Please list BuildRequires which are really needed when building this srpm. As far as I checked, "BR: python2-devel desktop-file-utils" is enough - i.e. "BR: gstreamer-python-devel pygtk2, gtk2" is unneeded. * Unneeded Obsoletes - "Obsoletes: %{name} < 0.3b" is unneeded and should be removed. * %setup - By default %setup uses %{name}-%{version} for default directory and "-n %{name}-%{version}" part is unneeded. * Directory ownership issue - Still the directory %{_datadir}/wordgroupz/ itself is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Wildcarding_Files_inside_a_Created_Directory * Desktop file - As I said in the previous comment, "Application" in "Categories" item is deprecated and should be removed. * %changelog - Please make the last entry of %changelog match the current EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) of the spec file (%changelog says the latest is 0.3b-2, while current EVR is 0.3b-1) - It is recommended (for Fedora VCS) that you put one line between each %changelog entry like ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Sat Jul 24 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.3b-2 - Included dependencies for pygst and beautifulsoup * Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.3b-1 - Release version 0.3b * Thu Jun 24 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.2-1 - Initial RPM package------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again Mamoru Tasaka, I have updated the SRPM and SPEC files. SPEC Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3b-2.fc13.src.rpm But, I didn't get why "Obsoletes" is unneeded. How will the older versions be removed then? Many package SPECS still use this.
(In reply to comment #8) > But, I didn't get why "Obsoletes" is unneeded. How will the older versions be > removed then? - "# rpm -F" "# rpm -U" "# yum update (upgrade)" all handles this just as expected. For 0.3b-2: * Unneeded comments / macros in comments ----------------------------------------------------------------- wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release} wordgroupz.src:20: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ----------------------------------------------------------------- - These warnings are raised because macros are used in comment line without being escaped. Macros are expanded even in comment lines and this sometimes causes unexpected errors. Please use %% instead of % in comment lines, or just remove unneeded comment lines. * Requires - "Requires: gtk" matches none of the packages on Fedora so this must be removed. Also, "Requires: gtk2" is unneeded because pygtk2 requires gtk2. * desktop file - Again as I said in the previous comment, "Application" in "Categories" item in %_datadir/applications/%name.desktop is redundant and should be removed.
ping again?
Hi, Today, I made an RPM for the latest wordgroupz codebase and included the above mentioned changes. SPEC: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3b-4.fc13.src.rpm
For 0.3b-4: * Source tarball -------------------------------------------------------------- 26340 wordgroupz-0.3b-1.fc13.src/wordgroupz-0.3b.tar.gz 50345 wordgroupz-0.3b-4.fc13.src/wordgroupz-0.3b.tar.gz -------------------------------------------------------------- - What happened here? Tarball itself must not be released until the version number is changed. If you are the upstream and you modified the source codes themselves, please change the version number of the tarball to avoid confusion. * Macros in comments - As I said in my previous comment, rpmlint still complaints: -------------------------------------------------------------- wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} wordgroupz.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release} wordgroupz.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name} -------------------------------------------------------------- The lines 13 and 21 are no longer needed. Please remove these unneeded comments. - If you want to keep these comments, please use %% instead of % in comments so that macros won't be expanded. * Requires - For "Requires: python-sqlite2" wordgroupz.py says: -------------------------------------------------------------- 19 import sqlite3 -------------------------------------------------------------- This uses sqlite3, not sqlite2, so "Requires: python-sqlite2" is not needed. Also "sqlite3" module is already in python rpm. - For "Requires: python-matplotlib" Why is this needed? It seems that the lines related to matplotlib are all commented out. * desktop file, - As I said before, "Application" in "Categories" item in %_datadir/applications/%name.desktop is redundant and should be removed. * Unneeded shebangs --------------------------------------------------------------- wordgroupz.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wordgroupz/espeak.py 0644L /bin/env wordgroupz.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wordgroupz/games.py 0644L /usr/bin/evn wordgroupz.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wordgroupz/get_fields.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wordgroupz.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/wordgroupz/html2text.py 0644L /usr/bin/env wordgroupz.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordgroupz --------------------------------------------------------------- - Shebangs on these files are unneeded because these scripts don't have exectuable permission. Also some files have wrong shebangs, anyway these shebangs should be removed.
(In reply to comment #15) > ping again? Sorry, after I released wordgroupz v 0.3, I got involved in working for an application for maintaining donation details for an NGO, and then I sugarified wordgroupz. SRPM Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-1.fc13.src.rpm SPEC Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec Sorry again for the delay.
For 0.3-1 * License - html2text.py is under GPLv3, this makes the whole license tag as just "GPLv3". ! Versioning - Current EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) 0.3-1%{?dist} is correct However, it seems that the previous tarball "0.3b" was the pre-release version of "0.3". In such case, it is not right to use "0.3b" as the version number of rpm, because rpm treats that "0.3b" is higher than "0.3". Please check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
(In reply to comment #17) > For 0.3-1 > > * License > - html2text.py is under GPLv3, this makes the whole license tag > as just "GPLv3". I have updated the license to GPLv3 > However, it seems that the previous tarball "0.3b" was the pre-release > version of "0.3". In such case, it is not right to use "0.3b" as > the version number of rpm, because rpm treats that "0.3b" is higher > than "0.3". Please check: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages How do I fix this history? Do I change the changelog, and the previous source files?
SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm I have updated wordgroupz code a bit. I got rid of the python-nltk dependency. I extracted only the code required for accessing wordnet dictionary from python-nltk. So will this new update be considered as a post release? In the Naming Guidelines, the naming format of post releases is given to be %{X}.%{posttag}. But if I change the wordgroupz version number from 0.3 to 0.3.1, then do I still require postag? Or will %{release-number}%{?dist} will suffice for the Release field?
(In reply to comment #20) > SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec > SRPM url: > http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm > > I have updated wordgroupz code a bit. I got rid of the python-nltk dependency. > I extracted only the code required for accessing wordnet dictionary from > python-nltk. So will this new update be considered as a post release? In the > Naming Guidelines, the naming format of post releases is given to be > %{X}.%{posttag}. But if I change the wordgroupz version number from 0.3 to > 0.3.1, then do I still require postag? > > Or will %{release-number}%{?dist} will suffice for the Release field? Well, what is pre-release or post-release is actually what the upstream (in this case you). - If you once released 0.3 and then released 0.3a, then 0.3a is a post-release of 0.3, and when using 0.3a tarball for rpm, you should use "0.3-%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR. - But in this case you released 0.3a before releasing 0.3. In that case you should use "0.3-0.%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR (so please chanage %changelog: Correct one is: ---------------------------------------------------------- Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.3-0.1.b - Release version 0.3b ---------------------------------------------------------- ) And if you release 0.3.1, you don't have to use %{alphatag} or %{posttag}, and you can use 0.3.1-%{X}%{?dist} for EVR.
By the way you mean that you want to upload new srpm using 0.3.1 tarball?
(In reply to comment #21) > Well, what is pre-release or post-release is actually what > the upstream (in this case you). > - If you once released 0.3 and then released 0.3a, then 0.3a is a > post-release of 0.3, and when using 0.3a tarball for rpm, > you should use "0.3-%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR. > > - But in this case you released 0.3a before releasing 0.3. In that case > you should use "0.3-0.%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR > (so please chanage %changelog: Correct one is: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.3-0.1.b > - Release version 0.3b > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ) Even though it is done, I didn't meant 0.3b to be a pre-release. This was wrong according to the naming system. I want to fix this, rather than sticking to the wrong format of name that I used. Please suggest what to do. I want to name the versions now on as recommended by Fedora packaging guidelines. Like 0.3.1, 0.3.2, ... , 0.4.0.b, 0.4.1 and so on.
(In reply to comment #22) > By the way you mean that you want to upload new srpm using > 0.3.1 tarball? yes
(In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #21) > > Well, what is pre-release or post-release is actually what > > the upstream (in this case you). > > - If you once released 0.3 and then released 0.3a, then 0.3a is a > > post-release of 0.3, and when using 0.3a tarball for rpm, > > you should use "0.3-%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR. > > > > - But in this case you released 0.3a before releasing 0.3. In that case > > you should use "0.3-0.%{X}.a%{?dist}" for EVR > > (so please chanage %changelog: Correct one is: > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Fri Jul 23 2010 rtnpro <rtnpro> 0.3-0.1.b > > - Release version 0.3b > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ) > Even though it is done, I didn't meant 0.3b to be a pre-release. This was wrong > according to the naming system. I want to fix this, rather than sticking to the > wrong format of name that I used. Please suggest what to do. > I want to name the versions now on as recommended by Fedora packaging > guidelines. Like 0.3.1, 0.3.2, ... , 0.4.0.b, 0.4.1 and so on. Just do so from later version. As you already released 0.3b before 0.3, 0.3b must be a pre-release for 0.3 (don't change the already released one). However from now on you can use 0.4b for post release of 0.4 (however I think 0.4.1 or so is more understandable).
Would you update the status of this bug?
I restored the changelog version numbers to 0.3b-1 and so on. As you suggested, from now on I will maintain the correct version number as you suggested. I didn't add new changelog for this because there were not much major changes involved. SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm
Please don't use the same EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) even in review request to avoid confusion. Would you change to -4 and resubmit?
(In reply to comment #28) > Please don't use the same EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) even in review > request to avoid confusion. Would you change to -4 and resubmit? SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3-4.fc13.src.rpm
SPEC Url : http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3.1-1.fc13.src.rpm SRPM for wordgroupz version 0.3.1
For 0.3.1-1: * Sources -------------------------------------------------------------- 67451 2010-10-15 17:24 wordgroupz-0.3.1.tar.gz 67332 2010-10-15 16:42 wordgroupz-0.3.1-1.fc13.src/wordgroupz-0.3.1.tar.gz -------------------------------------------------------------- - The source differs between the one in your srpm and the one I could download from the URL written in the spec file. Would you explain why? * EVR in %changelog - Again, in rpm "0.3b-4 > 0.3-1" but as 0.3.b _was_ released before 0.3, you should use "0.3-0.4.b", not "0.3b-4" (you can release 0.3.1b as the post release of 0.3.1, however 0.3b was already released before 0.3).
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR)
I updated the EVR for the beta versions in the Changelog. I updated the source package in the SRPM with that in the url. SPEC Url:http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SPECS/wordgroupz.spec SRPM Url: http://rtnpro.fedorapeople.org/Packages/SRPMS/wordgroupz-0.3.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Can I now make a SCM request for this package?
Approval is needed for every review request. Please wait until I check your latest srpm again.
Okay. ---------------------------------------------------------- This package (wordgroupz) is APPROVED by mtasaka ----------------------------------------------------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wordgroupz Short Description: A vocabulary building application Owners: rtnpro Branches: F-13 F-14 EL-5 InitialCC: rtnpro
Git done (by process-git-requests).
@Mamoru Tasaka The el-5 build failed for wordgroupz. Please check http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2585997 Error: + /usr/bin/python setup.py install --skip-build --root usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] or: setup.py --help-commands or: setup.py cmd --help error: option --root requires argument error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22660 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22660 (%install) But --root is having $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as argument.
(In reply to comment #38) > @Mamoru Tasaka > The el-5 build failed for wordgroupz. Please check > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2585997 > > Error: > + /usr/bin/python setup.py install --skip-build --root > usage: setup.py [global_opts] cmd1 [cmd1_opts] [cmd2 [cmd2_opts] ...] > or: setup.py --help [cmd1 cmd2 ...] > or: setup.py --help-commands > or: setup.py cmd --help > error: option --root requires argument > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22660 (%install) > RPM build errors: > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.22660 (%install) > > But --root is having $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as argument. Well, (as silently written in comment 1), on EPEL5 rpm version is old and BuildRoot: line cannot be omitted from spec file.
Would you rebuild this package on koji for F-15/14/13 and submit push requests on bodhi for F-14/13?
wordgroupz-0.3.1-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordgroupz-0.3.1-2.fc13
wordgroupz-0.3.1-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordgroupz-0.3.1-2.fc14
Closing, thank you.
wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc13
wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc14
wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
wordgroupz-0.3.1-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.