Hello folks, I've just finished packaging this little & very simple software, that helped me, and, at least, one more folk in our projects -- http://mamchenkov.net/wordpress/2005/04/27/subversion-and-file-permissions/ I'm looking forward your reviews to this work! Cheers!! Spec URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor-1.0-0.fc14.src.rpm Description: Spor recursively walks into a given directory, storing file mode & ownership information in a flat-file database for future retrievals. It was firstly intended to use with backup & version control scripts, and it provides a simple and safe method to save and restore particular meta-data information of a given directory.
Hi Rafael, your release number should start from 1, not 0. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version regards, Brendan
Hello Brendan, Thanks a lot for your accurate observation! Here it goes the update, now following correctly that police. Spec URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Cheers!
Hi Rafael, I am doing a formal review... Just one thing to change: - Change 'Source0' to 'http://code.google.com/p/spor/downloads/detail?name=%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2'. This is just to get rid of an rpmlint warning. The following review is done with the change from above. OK: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK: MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: 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. OK: MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: 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. OK: MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: 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. OK: 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. OK: MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK: 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. OK: MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK: 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. OK: 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. OK: 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) OK: 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. OK: MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: 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). OK: 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. OK: MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK: MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK: 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. OK: MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK: MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK: 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. OK: 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. OK: MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. rpmlint: spor.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/spor.1.gz 1: warning: `"' not defined I do not know much about man-pages so I can tell you how to fix this. Anyway the man-page is working as expected so I think we can ignore this. The package build fine on mock. This package is APPROVED.
Markus, Thanks a lot for your accurate observation and such detailed review! Here it goes an update, now fixing that rpmlint complaint on spor manpage. Spec URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor-1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm I'll be waiting you have a little look on this update, before I ask a new spor SCM branch Cheers!
Hi Rafael, I will not be able to test this package complitly till 14:00 EST. But after a quick look I have found that you have forgotten to change complitly 'Source0' to 'http://code.google.com/p/spor/downloads/detail?name=%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2' as described in #3. regards, Markus
Markus, I'm afraid that, unfortunately, can not be done! Your asking satisfy rpmlint complaint on .spec file, but it breaks rpmbuild. Besides, that is a nonsense rpmlint warning, since the package can easily be downloaded from the given Source URL Best regards
Hi Rafael, I am realy sorry! I did not test if rpmbuild is still working. I can confirm that the man-page-fix is working. rpmlint output: spor.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://spor.googlecode.com/files/spor-1.0.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found spor.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) As you mentioned above the first warning can be ignored. The 2nd ('mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs') can be fixed by replacing the 'tab' in line 12 with spaces. Best regards Markus
Markus, My bad... Fixed one thing and messed another... Now it's OK! Spec URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.fedorapeople.org/spor/spor-1.0-3.fc14.src.rpm Thanks for all your attention on reviewing this package! Best regards
Hi Rafael, I am totaly fine with this package. Feel free to request a new SCM branch. Regards Markus
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: spor Short Description: recursively walks into a given directory, storing all files modes and ownership information for future retrievals Owners: aquini Branches: f13 f14
Git done (by process-git-requests).
spor-1.0-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spor-1.0-3.fc13
spor-1.0-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spor-1.0-3.fc14
spor-1.0-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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 spor'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spor-1.0-3.fc13
spor-1.0-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
spor-1.0-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.