Spec URL: http://sebelk.fedorapeople.org/dtrx.spec SRPM URL: http://sebelk.fedorapeople.org/dtrx-7.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: dtrx is a simple but powerful python script that works as a front-end for a lot of archivers. It can do recursive extraction, for example extract tarballs from source rpms. dtrx extracts archives in a number of different formats; it currently supports tar, zip (including self-extracting .exe files), cpio, rpm, deb, gem, 7z, cab, rar (unrar is on a third party repository), and InstallShield files. It can also decompress files compressed with gzip, bzip2, lzma, xz, or compress. In addition to providing one command to handle many different archive types, dtrx also aids the user by extracting contents consistently. By default, everything will be written to a dedicated directory that's named after the archive. dtrx will also change the permissions to ensure that the owner can read and write all those files.
I will review your package.
The package looks quite good. Anyway maybe you should remove this phrase: « (unrar is on a third party repository) » Officially the Project isn't aware of any repository than its own. Perhaps something like instead « (if unrar is installed) ».
(In reply to comment #2) > The package looks quite good. Anyway maybe you should remove this phrase: > « (unrar is on a third party repository) » > Officially the Project isn't aware of any repository than its own. Perhaps > something like instead > « (if unrar is installed) ». Thanks Mohamed, New files URL's: Spec URL: http://sebelk.fedorapeople.org/dtrx.spec SRPM URL: http://sebelk.fedorapeople.org/dtrx-7.0-2.fc14.src.rpm Thanks for your adviced, done it!
Great :) This should be OK. Only one test failed in %check, but it tries to download a distant archive to be tested. No matter here. Here is the review. MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. ->OK, no serious warning 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 = 8297bd906088aedee840a32450efb1a2 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. ->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. ->NOK: rpm is already required by rpm-build, so it can be removed from the BuildRequires 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. ->N/A 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 Two small issues anyway: * You could remove p7zip from the BuildRequires, since it is already required by p7zip-plugins * you could also remove, as said above, rpm from the BR, since it is already required by rpm-build which is part of the minimum build env. (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2) Anyway this package is APPROVED. I trust you to fix the issues above before import. :)
Hi Mohamed! (In reply to comment #4) > Great :) > This should be OK. Only one test failed in %check, but it tries to download a > distant archive to be tested. No matter here. > Here is the review. > > MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > ->OK, no serious warning > > 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 = 8297bd906088aedee840a32450efb1a2 > > 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. > ->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. > ->NOK: rpm is already required by rpm-build, so it can be removed from the > BuildRequires > > 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. > ->N/A > > 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 > > Two small issues anyway: > * You could remove p7zip from the BuildRequires, since it is already required > by p7zip-plugins OK, I will remove it. > * you could also remove, as said above, rpm from the BR, since it is already > required by rpm-build which is part of the minimum build env. (see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2) Oh Thanks point it, I skipped "There is no need to include the following packages *or their dependencies*" > > Anyway this package is APPROVED. I trust you to fix the issues above before > import. :) Thanks Mohamed, in fact I'm fixing it and importing soon :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dtrx Short Description: Intelligent archive extractor Owners: sebelk Branches: f13 f14 f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dtrx-7.0-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dtrx-7.0-3.fc15
dtrx-7.0-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dtrx-7.0-3.fc14
dtrx-7.0-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dtrx-7.0-3.fc13
dtrx-7.0-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.
dtrx-7.0-3.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
dtrx-7.0-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.
dtrx-7.0-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
dtrx-7.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dtrx-7.1-2.fc16
dtrx-7.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dtrx-7.1-2.fc17
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dtrx Short Description: Intelligent archive extractor Owners: sebelk Branches: el6 InitialCC:
dtrx-7.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dtrx-7.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.