Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex-2.8-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Detex is a program to remove TeX constructs from a text file. It recognizes the \input command. This program assumes it is dealing with LaTeX input if it sees the string "\begin{document}" in the text. It recognizes the \include and \includeonly commands.
*** Bug 626175 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Since I *really* need this tool, I'd be glad to review it. Some comments: * your patch could be *really* simplified: - the flex package provides also lex, which is a symbolic link to flex ; - in the same way, libl.a is provided by the flex-static package and is a symbolic link to libfl.a As a result, modifying the LEX and LEXLIB variables in your patch is useless. You could even skip the « make install ... » instruction in %install in your .spec, and manually install the binary and the man page, like below: %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -Dpm 755 detex $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/detex install -Dpm 644 detex.1l $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/detex.1l (notice the -p option of install to preserve timestamp during installation). * detex is not compiled using the Fedora standard flags ($RPM_OPT_FLAGS). It appears clearly in compilation logs. Moreover the generated *-debug package is unusable. You must set the CFLAGS when calling make: %build make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" You can even add to CFLAGS the « -DNO_MALLOC_DECL » option you enabled on your patch; by this way, the patch is useless and can be removed from your package: %build make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -DNO_MALLOC_DECL" * The 1l section for man pages is sometimes intended for programs installed in /usr/local. This may be the reason for the man page to be suffixed « 1l ». Whatever the explanation, it's not correct. I suggest you to rename the man page to « detex.1 »: in %install, simply: %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -Dpm 755 detex $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/detex install -Dpm 644 detex.1l $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/detex.1 (dont forget to fix it also in %files section of your .spec). As a result, you should also patch the man page and replace each occurence of « 1L » to « 1 ».
Thank you for the review :) I've made the changes. Please find the spec here: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex.spec SRPM: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex-2.8-2.fc14.src.rpm A koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3004874 I did get rid of the patch completely. Please do have a look at the sed usage in the prep section once. Thanks. Ankur
That looks good :) According to the guidelines, patches in a .spec should have a comment. This concerns also fixes made through sed. This will not (only) help the reviewer, but it help you as a maintainer. By the way, why these lines in %prep? sed -i "/rm -f xxx\.l/d" Makefile sed -i "s/mv lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/cp lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/" Makefile In %description, use « DeTeX » instead of « Detex ». This seems to be the « official » name of the application.
Ping?
AH! Sorry, I missed out on the earlier mail. (In reply to comment #4) > That looks good :) > > According to the guidelines, patches in a .spec should have a comment. This > concerns also fixes made through sed. I'll add the comments. > This will not (only) help the reviewer, but it help you as a maintainer. > By the way, why these lines in %prep? > sed -i "/rm -f xxx\.l/d" Makefile > sed -i "s/mv lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/cp lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/" Makefile > The above sed commands are to make some changes in the Makefile to enable proper generation of debuginfo. If these files are removed/moved, debuginfo generation fails. > In %description, use « DeTeX » instead of « Detex ». This seems to be the « > official » name of the application. Okay. Do I upload a new spec? Or can I make these changes before the scm commit please? (Since only comments etc. are required) Thanks, Ankur
You upload not only a new spec but a new srpm because we are reviewing srpms.
(In reply to comment #7) > You upload not only a new spec but a new srpm because we are reviewing srpms. Well, I've got to keep you happy: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/detex/detex-2.8-2.fc15.src.rpm Ankur
> > By the way, why these lines in %prep? > > sed -i "/rm -f xxx\.l/d" Makefile > > sed -i "s/mv lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/cp lex\.yy\.c detex\.c/" Makefile > > The above sed commands are to make some changes in the Makefile to enable > proper generation of debuginfo. If these files are removed/moved, debuginfo > generation fails. OK, good catch :) You forgot in the last .spec you uploaded to replace « DeTex » by « DeTeX ». Anyway, it's a minor issue, I trust you to fix it before you upload the package. Here is the review: MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. ->OK, only false-positive spelling issues 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. ->OK, md5sum = 7a96b647f43bb077323cde92faa1e893 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. ->OK, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3032154 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. ->N/A 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. ->OK 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. ->N/A 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. ->N/A 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. ->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. ->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. ->OK 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}. ->N/A 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. ->N/A MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. ->OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ->OK This package is APPROVED!
There is still a small bug in the spec: the release was not bumped and -2 is in the changelog twie.
(In reply to comment #10) > There is still a small bug in the spec: the release was not bumped and -2 is in > the changelog twie. That isn't a bug afaics: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release Before I do an SCM request, should I change the *entire* package name to DeTeX Mohamed? I mean, change the spec name to DeTeX too, along with the changes in the description? (The final binary, and source is named detex though) And, I did make the change in the description, I changed Detex to DeTex, (forgot the X! XD ) Thanks for the review!! Ankur
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > There is still a small bug in the spec: the release was not bumped and -2 is in > > the changelog twie. > > That isn't a bug afaics: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release But we should have had two releases actually, even during a review. And if you substitute multiple versions in a changelog entry, it should actually be * Thu Apr 28 2011 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.8-2 - removed patch - renamed man page to .1 instead of .1l - corrected compilation flags - Review ticket #682666 - Added *comments* Highest version/release and latest date contain all changes. I suggest to leave it at -2 and just change the changelog. > Before I do an SCM request, should I change the *entire* package name to DeTeX > Mohamed? Please don't, leave the spec and the package "detex" please. LaTeX is also written lowercase in our package names "While case sensitivity is not a mandatory requirement, case should only be used where necessary." from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity
Hello, (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > There is still a small bug in the spec: the release was not bumped and -2 is in > > > the changelog twie. > > > > That isn't a bug afaics: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Multiple_Changelog_Entries_per_Release > > But we should have had two releases actually, even during a review. And if you > substitute multiple versions in a changelog entry, it should actually be > > * Thu Apr 28 2011 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.8-2 > - removed patch > - renamed man page to .1 instead of .1l > - corrected compilation flags > - Review ticket #682666 > - Added *comments* > > Highest version/release and latest date contain all changes. > > I suggest to leave it at -2 and just change the changelog. Okay, although the link that I posted above gives two ways of doing it (one of which is what I used). > > > Before I do an SCM request, should I change the *entire* package name to DeTeX > > Mohamed? > > Please don't, leave the spec and the package "detex" please. LaTeX is also > written lowercase in our package names > > "While case sensitivity is not a mandatory requirement, case should only be > used where necessary." > from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity Okay. Thank you for the clarification :) Ankur
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: detex Short Description: A program to remove TeX constructs from a text file Owners: ankursinha Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
detex-2.8-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/detex-2.8-2.fc15
detex-2.8-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/detex-2.8-2.fc14
detex-2.8-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
detex-2.8-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.