Spec url: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc.spec src.rpm url: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc-0.9.2-1.20100706hg1653.fc13.src.rpm $ rpmlint -i SPECS/ldc.spec SPECS/ldc.spec:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/.empty A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. SPECS/ldc.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ldc-20100706hg1653.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. _____________________________________________________________________________ $ rpmlint -i SRPMS/ldc-0.9.2-1.20100706hg1653.fc13.src.rpm => wrong misspeling warning _____________________________________________________________________________ $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/ldc-* ==> wrong misspeling warning and : ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldc ldc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldmd
You should fix the error and warning. Neither are hard. For the error just replace %{_prefix}/lib with %{_libdir}. Unless that doesn't work because the program places the file in lib regardless? Perhaps there's a config option that will help that. The warning is simple. You should specify the Source0 as a download link for the tarball, not just its name.
the warning about %{_prefix} can not be remove because %{_libdir} = /usr/lib | /usr/lib64 or here is always /usr/lib and this warning is for: rm %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/.empty i remove an empty file i put any file in %{_prefix}/lib Anf or Source i use upstream and in comment they are all information
link to guideline for name: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
i have update spec file, all is put here: http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ this empty file is removed because it's never used. "lib" is explicitely used instead of %_libdir because it's always used (not arch dependant). As I'm using a mercurial repo for the source, I can' t provide a download link, but the tarball creation process is explained in spec comments
Upstream doesn't release source tarballs I see. That's extremely weird, and you should strongly pressure them to publish tars of the source alongside their binaries. That said, its ok to do it this way for now. Give me a little more time to check the rest of the guidelines.
No problem :) here review guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
I'd update your comment about how to build the tarball to explain /why/ that exercise must be gone through and what the upstream situation is. Beyond that I'd say this is set. Do you need a sponsor?
i need a review :) (is not my first package)
@Casey Dahlin Hi, it seems you are not sponsor, so you cannot approve this package. But you can unofficial review which I would count this to be, even though this review request is messed up. Undone fedora-review tag and updating summary. Also added FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blocker list.
Jonathan is already sponsored, as he said... https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/bioinfornatics
@Casey Dahlin Ok, my bad, as Jonathan is already sponsored - in case you consider this as approved mark the flag. Don't forget to change status as well.
I don't see anything in the review process about a status change, though I do see I need to actually assign it to myself.
(In reply to comment #8) > i need a review :) > (is not my first package) You can request for cvs and import. @Casey Actually "I need a review" comment even after approval and wrong summary message confused me. Moreover generally reviewers tend to paste a check list and "approved" message in comments (both of which are not mandatory but common practice) in review requests which was not present here.
same as said Rakesh Pandit : ideally is paste here all NEED and SHOULD statement here and add foreach a comment: ok, available or not sometime you need explain more. statement here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Now if Casey Dahlin said 'i can request cvs' so ths review is finish
@Rakesh: I'll keep that in mind. @Jonathan: Go ahead and make your CVS request.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xautomation Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language Owners: bioinfornatics Branches: F-12 F-13
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ldc Short Description: It is a compiler for the D programming language Owners: bioinfornatics Branches: F-12 F-13
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
This is not NOTABUG. Closing as CURRENTRELEASE.