Spec URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This extension allows you to manage tickets via RT's email interface. You put commands into beginning of a mail and extension applies them. See the list of commands in the RT::Interface::Email::Filter::TakeAction docs. rpmlint output: [ke4qqq@nalleyx60 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.src.rpm ./perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec ../RPMS/noarch/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-1.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction -> Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction -> Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Successful koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576432 A couple of notes: %test was effectively disabled. As noted in the documentation for the test suite to function, RT's configuration file must be modified. rt3 really is a buildrequires, as it actively looks for the configuration file during building. Leaving it out prompts for the location of the configuration file. (You can see a failed koji build here showing the problem: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2576427 )
(In reply to comment #0) > rt3 really is a buildrequires, as it actively looks for the configuration file > during building. It doesn't. Makefile.PL actually looks for RT.pm (i.e. /usr/share/perl5/RT.pm) and retrieves a couple rt's system-wide configuration directories from there. => BR: perl(RT) I haven't looked into the run-time requirements yet, but "R: rt3" certainly is too comprehensive, because the package actually only depends on very few perl-modules from rt3. Also: The tests try to run /usr/sbin/rt-mailgate (rt-mailgate is not part of the main rt3 package) => BR: /usr/sbin/rt-mailgate Finally: Consider to extend the rpm-spec to support a --with tests option, such that people with an rt3 installation can test the tests.
Ralf: Thanks for taking a look. I think I have fixed all of the issues you have identified. SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-2.fc14.src.rpm
Hi David, i did a quick review on this, i have only 3 comments: a) rpmlint on spec file returns an easy solvable warning: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 18) b) I see that you have a requirement for "rt3" but i think that the real requirement (at least according to the perl sources) is for "perl(RT::Interface::Email)" which indeed is provided by rt3. c) I think that "BuildArch: noarch" is not needed. Regards, Christos PS: I can't act as reviewer so take my comments as advices.
David, I concur with Christos' comments; please fix these and I think we're done here.
(In reply to comment #3) > c) I think that "BuildArch: noarch" is not needed. Hi Christos, Can you tell me why you think BuildArch: noarch needs to be eliminated. This is code that is compiled at runtime, instead of during packaging. Is there some benefit I am missing? I've fixed the other issues you found. SPEC: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec SRPM: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14.src.rpm Thanks!!!
Hi David, if i'm not mistaken, "BuildArch: noarch", doesn't specify which arch will be used for the building time so omitting it shouldn't break anything. On the other hand, adding this enforces the package to create noarch RPMs even if they have arch based components. Again i may be wrong to this so i guess the best would be if Ruediger could comment on this as the official reviewer. Christos PS: As unofficial reviewer, i'm happy with either including or excluding the BuildArch tag.
(In reply to comment #6) > Again i may be wrong to this so i guess the best would be if Ruediger could > comment on this as the official reviewer. Sorry for the confusion on this point; my eye somehow skipped over point c) in comment #3. Because the scripts installed by this package will be identical regardless of the architecture on which they're installed, we don't need to care about the arch on which the package is built. Therefore, we should indeed mark it "noarch" to indicate that. David, this package looks fine to me now; thanks for bearing with us! :) ACCEPT - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14.src.rpm perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction -> Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14.noarch.rpm perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US TakeAction -> Take Action, Take-action, Abreaction 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL+ or Artistic [-] 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 is included in %doc. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum SOURCES/RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07.tar.gz 0352670f89246150c9cadabaac9fd167 SOURCES/RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/Download/RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07.tar.gz 0352670f89246150c9cadabaac9fd167 /home/rlandmann/Download/RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07.tar.gz [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2909730 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8
Thanks for the review Rudi and Christos! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail Short Description: Change metadata of a RT ticket via email Owners: ke4qqq Branches: f14, f15, el5, el6 InitialCC:
This ticket is not assigned to anyone. It should be assigned to the reviewer. Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail Short Description: Change metadata of a RT ticket via email Owners: ke4qqq Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc15
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.el6
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
perl-RT-Extension-CommandByMail-0.07-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.