Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/git2cl/git2cl.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/git2cl/git2cl-2.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Converts git logs to GNU ChangeLog format.
Legend: + - Ok. - - Error. +/- - It item acceptable, but I strongly recommend enhancement. = - N/A. MUST Items [+/-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint *.rpm *.spec git2cl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git2cl git2cl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: git2cl-2.0.tar.gz git2cl.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: git2cl-2.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Why source from git? There no stable releases ant tarballs? Then it should be reflected in version-release. Additionally you shoud provide implicit branch what you clone from git to get ability reproduce it at any time. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. See note before. [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2431014 [=] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [=] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [=] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [=] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [=] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [=] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [=] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [=] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [=] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [=] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [=] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [=] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [=] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [=] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [=] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [=] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Only issue with source require clarification. Except this package is fine.
> Why source from git? There no stable releases ant tarballs? Then it should be > reflected in version-release. Additionally you shoud provide implicit branch > what you clone from git to get ability reproduce it at any time. There seems to be no tar ball or similar created. There are just tags in the repo, e.g. http://repo.or.cz/w/git2cl.git/tag/refs/tags/git2cl-2.0 in particular so this is version 2.0 clearly as opposed to say earlier versions: http://repo.or.cz/w/git2cl.git/tag/refs/tags/git2cl-1.2 As such I don't think a git point is needed in the release since this is clearly the released version of git2cl. However I guess the tag could be moved so I am happy to put say. Version: 2.0 Release: 0.1.git8373c9f%{?dist} which is from $ git clone http://repo.or.cz/w/git2cl.git $ git checkout git2cl-2.0 HEAD is now at 8373c9f... Generated. $ git archive git2cl-2.0 | gzip -c > git2cl-2.0.tar.gz I think that is probably better as it has both the release of the tag and the git hash. Steve.
Just a small tip, using --prefix option in git archive and xz (to save som bytes): $ git archive --format=tar --prefix=%{name}-%{version}/ | xz -c > git2cl-2.0.tar.xz the -c option to %setup can then be removed. mkdir can be removed (if you like) by adding the -D option to install: install -p -D -m 755 git2cl $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/git2cl
New versions: Contain the git hash in the release. Uses the --prefix to git archive to make a with top level directory tar ball. http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/git2cl/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc13.src.rpm http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/git2cl/git2cl.spec
I do not see githash in checkout comment, but I do not familiar with git. If it possibility checkout exactly this hash (8373c9f, like revision in subversion) please add it also. In any case, it now at least in version and source may be reproduced. Package APPROVED. Good luck.
Pavel, the source could be reproduced before since it was an archive of a tag. If this one the objection in comment #1 then I much prefer the git2cl-2.0-1.fc13.src.rpm naming scheme which I think was also correct and not git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc13.src.rpm which is another way of being correct. Of course if you don't comment now then I will go with you approved from comment #4. Steve.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: git2cl Short Description: Converts git logs to GNU ChangeLog format. Owners: stevetraylen Branches: f13 f14 el4 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el4
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc14
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el5
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc13
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update git2cl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc14
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update git2cl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el4
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update git2cl'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el5
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
git2cl-2.0-0.1.git8373c9f.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.