Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rebar.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rebar-2-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Erlang Build Tools. This is one of the requirements for etorrent. rpmlint output: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-rebar-2-1.fc12.ppc.rpm erlang-rebar.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-rebar.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-rebar.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-rebar.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/erlang/lib/rebar-2/priv/templates/basicnif.c erlang-rebar.ppc: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/erlang/lib/rebar-2/priv/templates/simplenode.erl.script 0644 /bin/bash erlang-rebar.ppc: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS: First message is a false positive - due to "lib" substring in the name of explicit requires. The next two (no-binary, only-non-binary-in-usr-lib) should be ignored too - this is due to the fact that this package is arch-independent but it is installed into arch-dependent library. Next two messages also should be ignored - these are templates, required for package's normal operation. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2505758
Fresh koji scratchbuild for F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2606091
I'll review this this weekend.
Full review done, results below: Good: - rpmlint checks return: See Comment #0 - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Bad (MUST FIX): - Spec file states license is BSD, copyright headers in the source code contain MIT headers -> change spec file to match - License text included in the upstream sources is Apache -> do not include as %doc (as its wrong), mail upstream about this - source do no match upstream, doing spectool -g erlang-rebar.spec yields a different tarbal then in the source rpm -> include a tarbal generation script as Source2, make this script check out a specific revision. Remarks (Could FIX): - The %files contains: %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version} %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/include %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin/%{realname}.app %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin/*.beam %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/include/*.hrl %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/* This could simply be written as: %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version} rpmbuild will then cause the build rpm to own that dir and include (and own) all dirs and files under it.
Thanks! (In reply to comment #3) > Full review done, results below: > Bad (MUST FIX): > - Spec file states license is BSD, copyright headers in the source code contain > MIT headers -> change spec file to match Done. > - License text included in the upstream sources is Apache -> do not include > as %doc (as its wrong), mail upstream about this Removed. Will send message upstream asap. > - source do no match upstream, doing spectool -g erlang-rebar.spec yields > a different tarbal then in the source rpm -> include a tarbal generation > script as Source2, make this script check out a specific revision. Done. The project was relocated to GitHub, and I changed all links accordingly. > Remarks (Could FIX): > - The %files contains: > %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version} > %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin > %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/include > %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin/%{realname}.app > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/ebin/*.beam > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/include/*.hrl > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version}/priv/* > This could simply be written as: > %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{realname}-%{version} > rpmbuild will then cause the build rpm to own that dir and include (and own) > all dirs and files under it. Done. I also removed two bundled libraries (already packaged separately) and changed versioning to reflect that it's a post-release tarball: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rebar.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-rebar-2-2.20101120git90058c7.fc12.src.rpm
Looks good now, approved!
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-rebar Short Description: Erlang Build Tools Owners: peter Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
erlang-rebar-2-3.20101120git90058c7.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-rebar-2-3.20101120git90058c7.fc14
erlang-rebar-2-3.20101120git90058c7.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 erlang-rebar'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-rebar-2-3.20101120git90058c7.fc14
erlang-rebar-2-3.20101120git90058c7.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: erlang-rebar New Branches: el5 Owners: peter InitialCC: I managed to fix code (simply remove some functionality) which requires missing dependencies (due to old erlang) so it's useful addition again. Also some new Erlang packages which could be built with erlang R12B require it for building.