Spec URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf-0.2.64-1.aw_fc15.src.rm Description: BAMF removes the headache of applications matching into a simple DBus daemon and C wrapper library. Currently features application matching at amazing levels of accuracy (covering nearly every corner case). This package contains the bamf library. this is part of the Unity packaging project. includes one convenience patch, which upstream has already indicated they'll take, and is submitted there. rpmlint output: [adamw@adam SPECS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. those warnings are fine, it's intentional. Tested to build on current Rawhide.
I'll review this
SRPM actually is http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf-0.2.64-1.aw_fc15.src.rpm
A few minor issues: - license matches the actual package license in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ - package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391 ? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues ig soname isn't bumped for every release + rpmlint output rpmlint bamf.spec bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.src.rpm bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf-devel-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf-daemon-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.spec:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora - license matches the actual package license in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ + latest version packaged + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm ba433497562e4702a7cf93001491981a bamf-0.2.64.tar.gz - package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391 + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + %defattr line + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package runtime + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane ? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues ig soname isn't bumped for every release + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin n/a Package should have man files
gcc-4.6.0-0.3.fc15.x86_64 actually breaks the build. It built on a local rawhide box with gcc-4.5.1-6.fc15.x86_64 but now fails with the newer gcc
updated: Spec URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf-0.2.74-1.aw_fc15.src.rpm fixed the license (I think, it's a complex situation; I've reported it to upstream, I think the GPL headers are simply errors). Fixed the build problem by disabling the warning that causes the trouble. Adjusted the file lists (installation of vala and gir stuff was disabled in 0.2.72 for some reason). I haven't added any dependency on the 'base' package. Reasoning is that it's really a lib package, it only contains a library, and we should rely on auto-depends for libraries; I think it would actually violate another guideline to add an explicit dependency on it. It's actually correct to go with the soname requires even if it means you don't need the exact same version of the package, I think.
License looks good. I agree that its likely an upstream oversight. I agree on the lib deps, it was a query. Builds in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738565 APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bamf Short Description: Application matching framework Owners: adamwill Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
all done, thanks!
Please unretire the f19 and master branches; gnome-pie is still actively maintained and depends on bamf
Unretired.
(In reply to comment #11) > Unretired. fedpkg build fails on master branch (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5281650). Could all the blocked tags be unblocked? Thanks. BuildError: package bamf is blocked for tag f20
File unblock ticket with rel-eng.