Spec URL: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/django-paste.spec SRPM URL: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-paste-0.2-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Originally inspired by dpaste.com this application adds the ability to: See the differences between snippets A history of snippets as a tree See your latest 25 snippets (admin setting) A huge bunch of syntax highlighters (lexers) User defined settings to change the font-family as well as font-sizes Nicer colors Multilangual interface
rpmlint output: django-paste.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dpaste -> paste, pasted, d paste django-paste.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pastebin -> paste bin, paste-bin, pasteboard django-paste.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django. django-paste.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django. django-paste.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dpaste -> paste, pasted, d paste django-paste.src: W: invalid-url Source0: django-paste.tgz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. I think the naming is invalid. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease . I would also fix the first changelog entry.
Thanks for the feedback. The spelling errors reported are pretty much symptomatic of many software naming conventions imo, and would only confuse matters if corrected to please rpmlint when ran against the SRPM, when ran against the .spec - rpmlint plays nicely. The grammar changes to the spec have been changed to reflect the omission of a period at the end of the summary line, although I haven't capitalized dpaste, for the reason above. Invalid url is understandable, as the source is pulled from git. The naming convention I believe to be correct, as the upstream is currently labelled as version 0.2.4, please see http://github.com/bartTC/django-paste/tree/. Summary: I have changed the versioning to reflect 0.2.4, but will not change the naming of the file / version, as I believe 0.2.4 to be correct and up to date. I have removed a period from the summary tag, but have not changed the capitalization of the line, for the reasons discussed above. Spec file remains, and newest src.rpm is http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-paste-0.2.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Thanks very much for the review. Regards Dave Riches
I am willing to at least defer the spelling errors reported by rpmlint as I agree with you. Re: version. The version in the source is 0.2.4, but that doesn't mean anything without a tag/label. Could you ask upstream to tag the 0.2.4 release, as they did for the 0.2 release? See http://github.com/bartTC/django-paste/tree/django-paste-v0.2 I think they can generate tarballs from a git tag as well, which would trivially fix the Source0 problem. The current srpm does not build in mock / koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2426236 I think you should use %{version} instead of 0.2.4: %{python_sitearch}/django_dpaste-0.2.4-py2.*
Sorry for the delay Ok, all non-trivial rpmlint issues fixed up. You will notice a rm line in the spec file, this is due to a packaging error (not our end) which is due to be fixed by the upstream. Once it is, I'll bump the spec and update - but for now I think rm'ing the hidden files and backups should be ok. revised links: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/django-dpaste.spec http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-dpaste-0.2.4-1.fc13.src.rpm koji builds fine for me across 12/13/14/rawhide Hope this works out this time ;-)
Also, if its relevant I have also submitted django-simple-captcha just now.. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644883
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2545122 koji scratch build
also, submitted django-tracking : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645354
Fixed dependency issue.. SRPM: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc13.src.rpm SPEC: as above rpmlint output: clean against spec, rpm and src.rpm
Realistically speaking, I will not have the time to review this in the very near future. Sorry about that.
I'll pick this up for review. rpmlint SPECS/django-dpaste.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmbuild -ba SPECS/django-dpaste.spec gives a lot of warnings about certain files listed twice. I've altered and attached a new spec and src.rpm to eliminate these message. rpmlint RPMS/noarch/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Let's give this one more full run through. I would like to see a cleaner spec/src.rpm and I'll approve. Clint
Created attachment 463422 [details] src.rpm
Created attachment 463423 [details] spec file
David, Any chance you'll be looking at this in the next bit? I'm working on getting fpaste-server built and this is a dependency. If not, I could build and maintain the rpm if you like. Cheers, Clint
Hrm, with the alterations I still get: [david@vmserver SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc13.noarch.rpm django-dpaste.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/dpaste/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/django.mo django-dpaste.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/dpaste/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES/django.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Any thoughts?
Oops, I updated the lang entries in the spec file below. While it still gives warnings on the build of the rpm, it doesn't have any issues using rpmlint. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/django-dpaste.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Clint http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/django-dpaste-0.2.4-2.fc14.src.rpm http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/django-dpaste.spec
Oh, I wanted to make sure we got this into epel 5/6 just so we don't forget.
Done, and done.. SPEC: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/django-dpaste.spec SRPM: http://dcr226.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.src.rpm RPMLINT: Outputs nothing KOJI: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984296 <- f13 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984298 <- f14 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984300 <- f15 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984302 <- rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984306 <- el5 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2984308 <- el6 Thanks for all your help with this :-)
src.rpms are clean $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el5.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el6.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. binary rpms are clean $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc13.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc14.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.fc16.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el5.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint django-dpaste-0.2.4-3.el6.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. All MUST's have been met. I approve this package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: django-dpaste Short Description: dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django. Owners: dcr226 Branches: f13 f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: herlo
The requested package name and the name in the ticket summary do not match. Please correct whichever is wrong and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.
done
Git done (by process-git-requests).
This package was approved and imported in repositories and it was later retired, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.