Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl-1.9.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description:A cross-platform software package for econometric analysis, written in the C programming language.
*** Bug 580319 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hannes, could you please upload your files again? The above links currently don't work.
Sorry I changed the folder structure: Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-1.fc13.src.rpm
Here are a couple of quick comments: - adapt the URL in Source0 according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net - the license seems to be GPLv3+ - add a comment to the spec file telling what the patch does - the %description lines should not exceed 80 characters - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files how to install locale files - development files (.h, .pc, .so if corresponding .so.* is present, ...) must go to a -devel subpackage, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - you must call ldconfig in %post and %postun, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries - use macro %{_datadir} rather than %{_datarootdir} - add files COPYING, ChangeLog, CompatLog, README, README.audio with %doc
Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Tried to fix all the mistakes.
(In reply to comment #5) > Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec > SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-2.fc13.src.rpm > > Tried to fix all the mistakes. Some more notes: * %{_libdir}/libgretl*.la <-- *.la files must be removed. * Unowned directories: %{_datadir}/%{name} and %{_includedir}/%{name}
Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-3.fc13.src.rpm Ok, removed the static lib and changed the structure of the %files section.
I'll review it
Koji scratchbuild for F-13 (currently in progress): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2457450
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmling output isn't silent: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gretl-* gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretl_x11 gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretlcli gretl.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/gretl.desktop value "Application;Science;Econometrics" for string list key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" does not have a semicolon (';') as trailing character gretl-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gretl-1.9.1/plugin/heckit.c gretl-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. work ~: The two 'no-manual-page-for-binary' and one 'no-documentation' messages may be omitted, while the rest two should be fixed. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines. -- Lost of *.la files in %{_libdir}/gretl-gtk2 -- Duplicated COPYING file in %{_datadir}/%{name} -- Empty directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc - looks like a leftover. -- Bundled font files in %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts -- Missing Requires: gtksourceview (owner of %{_datadir}/gtksourceview-1.0) + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. -/+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (GPLv3+) but does not reflect licensing conditions for 'cephes', 'minpack' and some plugins. Please add them (seems to be a BSD for minpack, MIT for plugin/mpack, but IANAL). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2* b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2 b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji link above) + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. +/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. In fact I'm not quite sure because 'plugin/zipunzip' contains portions of zlib - please unvestigate this. 0 The package isn't designed to be relocatable + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files placed in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries (*.a) + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel package. + devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. See my upper notes. -/+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file MUST be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. Unfortunately it is simply copied with 'install' utility, so, please use desktop-file-validate (adds additional BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils) to check that everything is ok + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. That's all so far. Please comment/fix issues, mentioned above, and I'll continue.
Ok I hope I have fixed most of the errors. I have wrote an e-mail upstream concerning the questionable files in the plugin directory. Also I asked what the appropriate license is. I added the license where I was sure. Put it into Education because I really wasn't sure which one to choose. Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-4.fc13.src.rpm Greetings
(In reply to comment #11) > Ok I hope I have fixed most of the errors. I have wrote an e-mail upstream > concerning the questionable files in the plugin directory. Also I asked what > the appropriate license is. I added the license where I was sure. > Put it into Education because I really wasn't sure which one to choose. > > Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec > SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-4.fc13.src.rpm > > > Greetings Ok, good. Regarding fonts - I'm not sure that the proper way is simply to remove them w/o adding some new Requires. Please, ensure that fonts removal doesn't hurt usability. That's the last request from me.
Sorry for chiming in. Just a minor additional note: The Group of the devel package should be "Development/Libraries".
Ok, asked upstream for clarification regarding the license of the plugins and he sent me a list where he lists everything. Added this list - gretl_plugins.txt - to the package. Only questionable plugin might be lad.c but I wasn't able to remove it properly. Any advice on this? Upstream already removed it in their cvs. I symlinked system fonts and added BuildRequires and Requires for those fonts. Also asked upstream if they are necessary or if we could perhaps just drop them but I am waiting for a response. Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-5.fc13.src.rpm
Removed lad.c but the symlinks seem to be necessary as a workaround for gnuplot. Spec URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl.spec SRPM URL: http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/gretl/gretl-1.9.1-6.fc13.src.rpm rpmlint gretl-1.9.1-6.fc13.x86_64.rpm gretl.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/gretl/fonts/FreeSans.ttf /usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeSans.ttf gretl.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/gretl/fonts/Vera.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf gretl.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gretl-1.9.1/gretl_plugins.txt gretl.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/gretl/fonts/VeraMono.ttf /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/VeraMono.ttf gretl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretl_x11 gretl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretlcli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Ok, good. All issues found during review were addressed and the package builds fine in Koji: http://webplanet.ru/knowhow/security/nadyafrank/2010/09/16/watch.html So this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gretl Short Description: A tool for econometric analysis Owners: hannes Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC:
LOL. I just saw that I submitted wrong link instead of one to koji build:) Anyway it builds fine.
Proper http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2470695
Git done (by process-git-requests).
build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10925