Will be renaming entire drupal stack to drupal6, etc, to support parallell installable drupal7 stack when that's available. SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-6.x.2.11-1.fc13.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec
You should probably rename drupal-views-fedora-README.txt to drupal6-views-fedora-README.txt and maybe use %{name} there.
SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-6.x.2.11-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec Fixed.
SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-6.x.2.12-1.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec Security update.
Please see my comment on the cck package.
SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-6.x.2.12-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec Updated.
There's really only a couple problems that need to be fixed, although there are several FIX sections below. Most of it can be fixed once the updated source tarball is included. This review is late because I didn't grab it sooner, but Jon, I'll work hard to finish it quickly once you submit the fixes. * * * [ FIX ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-views.spec rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-views-6.x.2.12-2.fc14.src.rpm rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-views-6.x.2.12-2.fc14.noarch.rpm drupal6-views.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-views drupal6-views.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/drupal6/modules/views/translations/fr.po 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [ FIX ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. * The Source0 tarball still points to 2.11, and the SRPM includes that tarball, although the package is versioned at 2.12. Make sure you're using the updated sources. * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages (See rpmlint output above) Should this package also provide what it obsoletes in this case? [ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ O K ] MUST: 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. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ FIX ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. * I'll check once the new tarball is included. [ FIX ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. * I'll check once the new tarball is included. [ O K ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [ N/A ] MUST: 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. [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ O K ] MUST: 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. [ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [ FIX ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. * See rpmlint output above. [ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ N/A ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] MUST: 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. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ O K ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ O K ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Sorry I did this under my other BZ account, but it's still me :-)
Please be more verbose in the changelog the next time. The changelog reader can't see right away what the "Review adjustments" are. Please also consider aligning the values of Summary, Release, Name and so on. It makes it more beautiful. I left a note on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=658942 about the version numbering. The review over there doesn't use the prefix 6.x. Use %{version} in the source line.
Since the module uses Drupals CVS, it must be GPLv2+. http://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q4
Jon, you'll need to change the version to 2.12 from 6.x.2.12 This is what started the renaming discussion - a version of 6.x.2.12 violates the packaging guidelines. Also the 6.x is implied by the package name drupal6-modulename now.
Dang, I missed that one, thanks Sven.
Fixed license and version. Fixed source as well. I don't see the permissions error now. SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-2.12-1.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/drupal6-views.spec rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/drupal6-views-2.12-1.fc14.noarch.rpm rpmbuild/SRPMS/drupal6-views-2.12-1.fc14.src.rpm drupal6-views.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided drupal-views drupal6-views.src: W: strange-permission views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Writing this for posterity... Our renaming is meant to migrate toward parallel installable drupal 6/7. It would probably be unsafe to provide drupal-views=6.x.2.12 because that would confuse (and drag in the whole D6 stack) for a user who has drupal7 installed and then mistakenly tries to 'yum install drupal-views' instead of 'yum install drupal7-views'. It's safer to ignore the first warning I think. The second warning can be safely ignored -- the FIX notation above is mistaking permissions on the tarball for permissions on the installed files. * * * $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views-2.12/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz ; curl -s -o - http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz | md5sum - 2b666d68e8566f14b85cf546d643e3e5 rpmbuild/SOURCES/drupal6-views-2.12/views-6.x-2.12.tar.gz 2b666d68e8566f14b85cf546d643e3e5 - * * * Build is successful (makes noarch on x86_64). APPROVED.
The obsoletes is wrong: Obsoletes: drupal-views >= 6.x.2.11 We don't want to obsolete future versions of the package but previous ones.
Wouldn't future versions of this package be "drupal6-views," not "drupal-views"?
(In reply to comment #15) > Wouldn't future versions of this package be "drupal6-views," not > "drupal-views"? Yes. But how is that related to the obsoletes? Obsoletes are for upgrades - if someone updates from f14 to f15 that obsoletes is needed.
Corrected obsoletes direction. SRPM: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views-2.12-2.fc14.src.rpm SPEC: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/drupal6-views/drupal6-views.spec
Got the obsoletes issue sussed out between BZ and the list, so this is OK for git + builds, at the appropriate time. Thanks Jon and everyone.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drupal6-views Short Description: Provides a method for site designers to control content presentation Owners: limb Branches: EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). PS: Could you stick to the normal format of summary for reviews? Anything else shows up as a flag in the processing script and also makes it harder to find this review later... ie: Review Request: drupal6-views - whatever Thanks.
drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6
drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5
Noted, thanks!
drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5, drupal6-cck-2.9-1.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 drupal6-views drupal6-cck'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5,drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5
drupal6-views-2.12-2.el5, drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
drupal6-views-2.12-2.el6, drupal6-cck-2.9-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.