Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs.spec SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs-0.1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: A set of helpful libraries used by projects such as SSSD These libraries used to be included in the SSSD SRPM, but upstream has split them off into their own tarball. Successfully built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2485102
[!] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - The spec URL looks like it's not correct, I think it should be either a full URL or in case of a snapshot or similar, a method how to generate it. Koji scratch builds (f14 and devel): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486519 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486524 RPMLint output - binaries libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Filesystem -> File system, File-system, Systematic libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic libpath_utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames -> pathname, path names, path-names libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpath -> lib path, lib-path, librate libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> utile, utilizes, utilize libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic libpath_utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pathnames -> pathname, path names, path-names libdhash.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize -> resile, reside, re size libdhash-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resize -> resile, reside, re size libref_array.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) refcounted -> recounted, ref counted, ref-counted libref_array-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libref -> libre, lib ref, lib-ref libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure libini_config.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcollection -> lib collection, lib-collection, collection libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libini -> libidinal, libido, Libia libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) config -> con fig, con-fig, configure libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure libini_config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcollection -> lib collection, lib-collection, collection RPMLint output - source RPM: ding-libs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ding-libs-0.1.1.tar.gz - This was discussed above The rest looks pretty good: [OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK] - 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. [OK] - The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] - The package MUST successfully compile and build [OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - The two above were tested with koji scratch build [OK] - 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. [OK] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [OK] - 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. [OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] - Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] - Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] - 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. [OK] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly.
I think we should also close the separate review bugs and have the few separate packages that already had dist-git done removed.
Fixed the source address. Also, yes. I plan to close the review bugs and follow the dead.package process for the other packages. Spec URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs.spec SRPM URL: http://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/ding-libs-0.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm Built in koji (rawhide): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2486716
Thank you, approved. Just one thing, which I'm sure you're aware of - this update needs to be coordinated with SSSD update as (for example) libcollection version in ding-libs is 0.6 and sssd currently requires 0.5.0.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ding-libs Short Description: "Ding is not Glib" assorted utility libraries Owners: sgallagh dpal Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC:
User dpal doesn't seem to be in the packager group?
(In reply to comment #6) > User dpal doesn't seem to be in the packager group? Sorry, please move dpal to the InitialCC instead
Git done (by process-git-requests).