Spec URL: http://astokes.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-srvany/mingw32-srvany.spec SRPM URL: http://astokes.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-srvany/mingw32-srvany-1.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: Utility for creating a service from any MinGW Windows binary
Andrew, sorry for shamelessly breaking into your review but it has been more than two weeks since last change of this ticket. And some people are waiting for this package. So here is my REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent Sulaco ~: rpmlint Desktop/mingw32-srvany-* mingw32-srvany.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-srvany-debuginfo.noarch: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Sulaco ~: The sub-package -debuginfo is empty so I suppose you should not even try to build it. +/- The package seems to be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Nevertheless I'm feeling doubts here - the upstream named it as rhsrvany, so it make me wonder that mingw32-rhsrvany could be more proper package's name for this app. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines except the issue with bogus debuginfo (see above). + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file DOES NOT match the actual license (GPLv2+). 0 No file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is provided by upstream. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package, MUST match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Unfortunately I got only 404 while trying the url from spec - please fix it. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz* 28c3911ee7d5acbba12532c8417d4b34c4bec6f5dece191773a62df87c39bc28 rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz 28c3911ee7d5acbba12532c8417d4b34c4bec6f5dece191773a62df87c39bc28 rhsrvany-1.0.0.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2521293 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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. 0 No need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel entirely. 0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a blocker. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Summarizing things - please: * Fix URL * Fix license tag * Do not generate bogus debuginfo package * Comment my doudts about name of package
Ping, Adam.
Hi Peter, thanks for the review, we'll get those fixed asap. Regarding the name, RHSrvAny is needlessly Red Hat specific. The upstream project will either be renamed to WinSrvAny or just mingw32-srvany as in the package here (mingw32-WinSrvAny seems needlessly redundant).
Having talked to rjones, we've agreed: 1) to drop the RH prefix and use mingw32-srvany as the project name 2) to designate http://github.com/beekhof/mingw32-srvany as "upstream" As such, new SRPM is here: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/beekhof/matahari/fedora-13/SRPMS/mingw32-srvany-1.0-3.fc13.src.rpm And the updated spec file here: http://oss.clusterlabs.org/~beekhof/mingw32-srvany.spec It should address all the concerns raised in comment #1
License tag is wrong: http://github.com/beekhof/mingw32-srvany/blob/master/COPYING "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." GPLv2+
Ah, well spotted. No idea why it was set to BSD. With that change the review is passed?
(In reply to comment #6) > Ah, well spotted. No idea why it was set to BSD. > With that change the review is passed? No it won't. I'm just waiting for this to be fixed before final approval. This is the only issue remaining.
(In reply to comment #6) > Ah, well spotted. No idea why it was set to BSD. > With that change the review is passed? Oh, I'm so sorry - I have no idea why I replied you that the review won't be passed even with this change. Because this is the only issue remaining, I'll mark this review as passed right after you'll provide src.rpm with fixed License tag. So, please, provide updated spec and srpm, and I'll finish this review.
Done Spec file is in the same location, updated SRPM is: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/beekhof/matahari/fedora-13/SRPMS/mingw32-srvany-1.0-4.fc13.src.rpm Sorry for the delay
Ok, good. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-srvany Short Description: Utility for creating a service from any MinGW Windows binary Owners: beekhof Branches: F14 InitialCC: astokes
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported. Closing. Thankyou all.