Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2010.12.08-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: A compiler for the pic language with more ouptut formats including raw PostScript, LaTeX, TikZ, and more. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64 dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Might I suggest cleaning up the spec file with e.g. by replacing the long example building bit with a simple # Add current directory to path export PATH=$PATH:`pwd` # Build examples pushd examples for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do make $target mv tst.ps example-$target.ps done for target in psfrag postscript; do make $target mv tst.ps example-$target.ps mv diag.eps example-$target.eps done for target in xfig; do make $target mv diag.fig example-$target.fig done # Clean up temporary files rm tst-mfpic.* tst.* diag.* # Return to parent directory popd *** If you want to add numbering, you can do it with e.g. n=0 for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do let n=n+1 make $target mv tst.ps example-${n}-${target}.ps done
The numbers are for which diag and tst file they were generated from. I suppose since the Makefile is shipped with the examples, which sources the examples were build from is more obvious. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2010.12.08-2.fc14.src.rpm
*** Bug 530755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2012.02.12-1.fc18.src.rpm dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-2012.02.12.tar.gz 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
I note there's a 2012.04.23 release out. (Welcome to the treadmill). This seems pretty simple, though. Of note: the README file indicates that dpicdoc.pdf is Creative Commons attribution 3.0 (CC-BY). The examples package comes out completely empty for me; just two directories (/usr/share/dpic and /usr/share/dpic/examples). I also note that the examples package doesn't seem to require the main package; I'm not sure if that's intentional.
(In reply to comment #5) > I note there's a 2012.04.23 release out. (Welcome to the treadmill). This > seems pretty simple, though. Yeah, updating is easy, just need to *do* it. > Of note: the README file indicates that dpicdoc.pdf is Creative Commons > attribution 3.0 (CC-BY). Thanks. Updated. > The examples package comes out completely empty for me; just two directories > (/usr/share/dpic and /usr/share/dpic/examples). I also note that the examples > package doesn't seem to require the main package; I'm not sure if that's > intentional. No, it isn't. Seems I was mistaken in how install -d works. Requires added as well. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-rawhide-x86_64 dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz 0640L dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be your umask.) The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" directory is repeated: /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd20699990bbd462914b8a dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README file) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = (none special) dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18 = dpic = 2012.04.23 * no bundled libraries. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
(In reply to comment #7) > Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine. (Though I wonder > why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions. I guess it could be > your umask.) Yeah, I use 027 as my umask. > The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 > now. Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished. (Last I > checked it was waiting on just two license issues.) Anyway, that's …an incomplete sentence ;) . I didn't know texlive2012 was that close. I know jnovy fedorapeople repo hasn't been updated in a long time, but I haven't seen any reviews going by. > Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a > comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license. Ah, yeah. > The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" > directory is repeated: > /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README > I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as > documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity. Hmm, I'll get rid of the duplicate examples thing. Must have skimmed that when looking at the path lists.
Did I miss an update?
Nope, I've put off the license inspection mainly :/ . I'll try to figure some time in for going through my bugzilla backlog in the next week or so.
Ben it has been a few years since your last comment on this ticket. Are you intending to progress this? As per policy if there is no response within a week the bug will be closed so that others may create a fresh review request if interested. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
It's been over a week with no response from the requestor to the NeedsInfo flag. Closing as per policy.