Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-mustache.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: An Erlang port of Mustache for Ruby. Mustache is a framework-agnostic templating system that enforces separation of view logic from the template file. Indeed, it is not even possible to embed logic in the template. This allows templates to be reused across language boundaries and for other language independent uses. This is one of the requirements for erlang-rebar. rpmlint messages: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-1.fc12.ppc.rpm kojerlang-mustache.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template's, template ierlang-mustache.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-mustache.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: All these messages should be ignored - first one is just a failse positive, while the rest is due to fact that we're installing arch-independent data (Erlang's VM images) into arch-dependent directory. Koji scratch build for F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2505964
I'll review this.
REVIEW: (I'll use your template) Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent, but the only its message is a false positive: - I suggest changing "templating system" to "template system". - only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: general Erlang packaging problem which cannot be avoided in the package + 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines. + 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 (MIT). + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. downloaded# sha256sum mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz b06910e405e723e20b8924de2f2b7717f8cc3a6902f0d718629d3520897ffe01 mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz package# sha256sum mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz b06910e405e723e20b8924de2f2b7717f8cc3a6902f0d718629d3520897ffe01 mojombo-mustache.erl-v0.1.0-0-g795a15f.tar.gz + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + 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. You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{} notation for other macros. Please use %{buildroot}. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 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. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 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. Just a minor: the macro usage that should be unified, particularly obvious in the install line. I'll go over the others tomorrow, gotta leave for today. I suspect they might suffer from the same thing, maybe you can have a look at them right away.
All done ("templating" -> "template" and macro usage consistency): http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-mustache.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
Looks all good to me now. APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-mustache Short Description: Mustache template engine for Erlang Owners: peter Branches: f12 f13 f14 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc13
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc12
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.el5
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc14
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.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 erlang-mustache'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.el5
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-mustache-0.1.0-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.