Spec URL: http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam.spec SRPM URL: http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam-0.3-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: PyCAM supports features like: Cutters: · Spherical Cutter · Cylindrical Cutter · Toroidal Cutter Toolpath Generators: · DropCutter · PushCutter Postprocessors: · Linear · ZigZag · Polygon · Contour (aka. waterline) Here is the link to the koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2412730
I still need a sponsor, I will apply to the packager group as soon as possible. With kind regards, Fabian Kanngießer
The license text file says "GPL version 3 or higher" I updated this in my specfile to GPLv3+. Here are the new srpm and koji scratchbuild: http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam-0.3-2.fc13.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2413810 With kind regards, Fabian Kanngießer
I added another dependency which I have not seen from the beginning. New SRPM: http://underscores.fedorapeople.org/pycam-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2413850
I've got two small notes so far: As described at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL, you should be able to shorten the download URL for/from Sourceforge. Readability improvement *suggestions*: * preceed section introducing keywords consistently by two empty lines, e.g. between the last Requires and the %description keyword. * leave a blank line between changelog entries. * use more than one space for intendation. I could not find any regressions so far. The package builds fine for me (tried via rpmbuild and mock). The program starts up and seems to work (as far as I can see as a non-specialist for CAD). I'd be glad to see you sponsored to get a formal review done. :)
% rpmlint pycam.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. % rpmlint pycam-0.3-3.fc13.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. % rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/pycam-0.3-3.fc14.noarch.rpm pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. There actually is a manpage, but it is not installed. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [-] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. This is a noarch package. [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM: man page not installed, see above. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv3+ Just to mention: There is an SVG file claiming to be Creative Commons. [X] License file is included in %doc. [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: 1c5135c2c531574013f3491884607512f44f7e5c [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] Package owns directorys it creates [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [x] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [x] Package builds in mock Tested on: F14/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required I think the additional source file for the desktop can be removed, since the pycam-0.3 tarball delivers exactly the same file. You also should fix the man page issue. Anything else looks good so far and the package is APPROVED.
Hi, I'd like to be this package's owner, if the original submitter has lost interest. Here is a package updated to the latest release, PyCAM 0.5.1. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-0.el6.src.rpm I set the review flag and will clear some of the dependencies.
Quick spec review. Very clean overall! Nitpicks: - Blank line between %description and text. I'm not sure if that would show up in the final rpm -qi / yum info or not. - It doesn't matter in this case because you're not returning to the source directory, but in general, pushd/popd is much better than using cd/cd .. - Unless you're going to support EL 5, I'm pretty sure you don't need: -- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install -- %clean at all If you did want to support EL 5 I think you would need %{defattr} in %files. - Fabian had some extraneous spaces in the "-" in the changelog and one "." instead of a "-".
(In reply to comment #7) > Quick spec review. Very clean overall! > > Nitpicks: > - Blank line between %description and text. I'm not sure if that would show > up in the final rpm -qi / yum info or not. Removed. I actually like the blank line, because my editor can re-wrap the description text without wrapping up '%description' with it. That's my editor's fault, though. > - It doesn't matter in this case because you're not returning to the source > directory, but in general, pushd/popd is much better than using cd/cd .. Fixed. This actually bit me right before I saw this when I added something at the end of the script that expected to be in the source directory. :P Good catch. > - Unless you're going to support EL 5, I'm pretty sure you don't need: > -- rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install > -- %clean at all Removed. > If you did want to support EL 5 I think you would need %{defattr} in %files. Nope! > - Fabian had some extraneous spaces in the "-" in the changelog and one "." > instead of a "-". Ahh, good eye. Fixed. Also realized that upstream provides a better .desktop file, so Source1: is removed. New src.rpm and .spec (koji scratch-build for el6, f17 & f18 all succeed): http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4567/5224567/pycam-0.5.1-1.fc18.src.rpm https://github.com/zultron/pycam-rpm/blob/master/pycam.spec
Looks like the koji link expired or something. Perhaps you could put in on your fedorapeople.org account if you have one (or use something like dropbox, which is what I do).
Hi Richard, here're specfile and srpm in dropbox: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-1.el6.src.rpm Thanks!
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must contain BR: python2-devel or python3-devel, not just python- devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in pycam See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Icons seem to be available in share/mime for some reason. You will need to install those manually in the spec file. - The man page is built but not installed. Should be installed manually then. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/625592-pycam/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 8 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pycam-0.5.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm pycam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolpath -> tool path, tool-path, towpath pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pycam-0.5.1/LICENSE.TXT pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pycam/doc/LICENSE.TXT pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pycam pycam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolpath -> tool path, tool-path, towpath pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pycam-0.5.1/LICENSE.TXT pycam.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pycam/doc/LICENSE.TXT pycam.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pycam 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- pycam (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python PyOpenGL pygtk2 pygtkglext python(abi) Provides -------- pycam: mimehandler(application/postscript) mimehandler(application/sla) mimehandler(image/svg+xml) mimehandler(image/vnd.dxf) pycam MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/pycam/pycam/0.5.1/pycam-0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e26a6db82efa4761a1db6b81de3165898430d5c14d09614b67321105d67e264c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e26a6db82efa4761a1db6b81de3165898430d5c14d09614b67321105d67e264c Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 625592
Since I took so long to get to this I figured I could take care of the problem for you! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/pycam.spec Of course compare with yours to make sure you agree.
Wow, gosh, you did all the hard part! Silly I didn't find some of those problems myself. Great job on the review, as always, thank you! Updated spec and srpm: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/pycam.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105750132/pycam/pycam-0.5.1-2.el6.src.rpm
Looks good to me! *** APPROVED ***
Thanks again, Richard. Setting fedora-cvs flag to '?'. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pycam Short Description: Open Source CAM - Toolpath Generation for 3-Axis CNC machining Owners: zultron Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Hrm, cvs flag set to '-', resetting to '?'.
Requested package name pycam doesn't match bug summary PyCAM, please correct.
Request title fixed.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
pycam-0.5.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.el6
pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19
pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18
pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
pycam-0.5.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
pycam-0.5.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
pycam-0.5.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.