Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-examples/gnustep-examples.spec SRPM URL: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/gnustep-examples/gnustep-examples-1.3.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This package contains sample applications for the GNUstep framework.
Doing the review now, however, currently it does not compile on F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2463352
Koji build succeeds on F-14. Might want to update the F-13 stack. Now that Bodhi requires votes on all updates before they're pushed, actually, I'll sign up on the package DB to get notified on GNUstep packages so I that I can help test updates. F-14 Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2463407 Review to follow.
This package is almost ready for approval -- please include the license file in %doc and I can then approve this. * TODO Review [90%] ** DONE Names [2/2] *** DONE Package name *** DONE Spec name ** DONE Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]] ** DONE source files match upstream b6fd31000b125d4aaf217ed038d2d3f3 gnustep-examples-1.3.0.tar.gz b6fd31000b125d4aaf217ed038d2d3f3 /home/michel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/gnustep-examples-1.3.0.tar.gz ** TODO License [2/3] *** DONE License is Fedora-approved *** DONE License field accurate *** FAIL License included iff packaged by upstream - State "FAIL" from "TODO" [2010-09-12 Sun 23:14] \\ ./gui/ExampleTheme/Rhea/COPYING (GPLv3) should probably be included. Unfortunately there is no bundled copy of the GPLv2 text -- perhaps contact upstream and ask them to put COPYING.GPLv2 and COPYING.GPLv3 in the tarball's root directory? ** DONE rpmlint [2/2] *** DONE on src.rpm Please fix warning, though: gnustep-examples.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 19) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. *** DONE on x86_64.rpm gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NSImageTest gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Calculator gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CurrencyConverter gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary md5Digest gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NSBrowserTest gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary GSTest gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NSPanelTest gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Ink gnustep-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary NSScreenTest 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. ** DONE Language & locale [3/3] *** DONE Spec in US English *** DONE Spec legible *** N/A Use %find_lang to handle locale files ** DONE Build [3/3] *** DONE Koji results http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2463408 *** DONE BRs complete *** DONE Directory ownership ** DONE Spec inspection [10/10] *** N/A ldconfig for libraries *** DONE No duplicate files *** DONE File permissions *** DONE Filenames must be UTF-8 *** DONE Has %clean section (except F-13+: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean) Note: consider doing %if 0%{?fedora} >= 13 %else %clean ... %endif because otherwise some Fedora provenmaintainers like to nuke the %clean section on Rawhide, which causes the spec to not be sharable with older distributions like RHEL 6 Also note that BuildRoot is not needed on F10 and above and RHEL 6, but if you want to target RHEL 5 too, keeping it is fine. *** DONE %buildroot cleaned on %install *** DONE Macro usage consistent *** DONE Documentation [2/2] **** N/A If large docs, separate -doc **** N/A %doc files are non-essential *** DONE Development [5/5] **** N/A Headers in -devel **** N/A If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel **** N/A Static only if necessary, put in -static **** N/A -devel, -static requires main **** N/A No .la *** N/A Other subpackages ** N/A Desktop file validation ** DONE [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] [4/4] *** N/A desktop-database (desktop entry has MimeType) *** N/A icon cache (icons in %{_datadir}/icons/) *** N/A info files *** N/A mimeinfo (file in %{_datadir}/mime/packages)
Forgot to assign the bug to myself
There is no license file on the upstream tar ball.
There is one in a sub-directory: ./gui/ExampleTheme/Rhea/COPYING so I guess you can include that. As some files are actually under GPLv2, though, asking upstream to properly include both in the root directory of the next release would be great. APPROVE-ing this, with one note: 1. include ./gui/ExampleTheme/Rhea/COPYING as part of %doc (that would copy the file to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}) 2. email upstream asking for the missing license texts 3. put a note above the %doc declaration to remind us about what's going on
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gnustep-example Short Description: GNUstep examples Owners: s4504kr Branches: f14, f13, f12 InitialCC:
Jochen, I cleared your fedora-cvs request because you requested the wrong one -- it has to be ? rather than - (I could change it myself but then the request will look as coming from me and that'd be bad) Could you request el6 as well? RHEL 6 will be F-12-based and we should get as many packages in as possible before the Bodhi update process starts applying to it as well.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gnustep-example Short Description: GNUstep examples Owners: s4504kr Branches: f14, f13, f12, el6 InitialCC: There is a request for EL6 too, so I have create a modified version of the SCM request.
You need to re-request the fedora-cvs flag too :)
Git done (by process-git-requests). I assume you mean gnustep-examples and not gnustep-example.