Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/ppm/ppm.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/ppm/ppm-20110323-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: prepaid-manager-applet aims to ease the handling of mobile internet connections using GSM mobile prepaid cards on the GNOME Desktop. Such a SIM card can either be in a mobile phone used as a modem, a usb 3g module (usb surf stick) or used by the built in 3G chip set in your laptop/net book. * It allows you to check the current balance and to top up the credit. * It uses ModemManager to talk to your GSM chip set.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ppm-20110323-1.fc14.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/ppm.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm ppm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> sub, us, sb ppm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ppm-20110323.tar /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SPECS/ppm.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ppm-20110323.tar ppm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> sub, us, sb ppm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary prepaid-manager-applet ppm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usb -> sub, us, sb ppm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ppm-20110323.tar 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
I'll do an unofficial review.
Unofficial review: + = OK - = NA ? = issue + Package meets naming guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. ? Spec has consistent macro usage. ? Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches ? License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch ? BuildRequires correct + Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all the directories it creates. - No rpmlint output. ? final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag - Should package latest version Issues: 1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files (seems wrong to me). Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information. 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs, when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your package. 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in the same spec. Read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS for more information. Warnings: 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above. Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly.
Thank you for the review. (In reply to comment #3) > Unofficial review: > > + = OK > - = NA > ? = issue > > + Package meets naming guidelines > + Spec file matches base package name. > ? Spec has consistent macro usage. > ? Meets Packaging Guidelines. > + License > + License field in spec matches > ? License file included in package > + Spec in American English > + Spec is legible. > - Sources match upstream md5sum: > > - Package needs ExcludeArch > ? BuildRequires correct > + Spec handles locales/find_lang > - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. > + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. > + Package has a correct %clean section. > - Package has correct buildroot > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > + Package is code or permissible content. > - Doc subpackage needed/used. > + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. > > - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. > - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun > - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig > - .so files in -devel subpackage. > - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > - .la files are removed. > > + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file > > + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. > + Package has no duplicate files in %files. > + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. > - Package owns all the directories it creates. > - No rpmlint output. > ? final provides and requires are sane: > > > SHOULD Items: > > - Should build in mock. > - Should build on all supported archs > - Should function as described. > - Should have sane scriptlets. > - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. > + Should have dist tag > - Should package latest version > > Issues: > > 1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files > (seems wrong to me). Please read > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information. I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm. > 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs, > when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your > package. I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime. > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 Weird, it built in mock correctly. > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager Do I need to specify explicit requires? > 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in the > same spec. Read > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS > for more information. Corrected. > > Warnings: > 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above. Removed. > > Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly. Thanks, Ankur
(In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for the review. > > > 1. I'm not sure about the directory in which you located the py and pyc files > > (seems wrong to me). Please read > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python for more information. > > I checked up on this already. I'm not sure either. As of now, the files are > placed where the make script puts them. I'll contact upstream to confirm. > Well I think it's not an upstream issue but rather a packaging issue. Please try to install it in a normal location for python files (written in the guidelines) and if it works, then use it. If not, report a bug to the upstream. > > 2. Please ask upstream to include license in the git repository (and tarballs, > > when upstream releases those) so that you can include the license file in your > > package. > > I'll do that and include a license as a SOURCE: in the meantime. Sounds fine. > > > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 > > Weird, it built in mock correctly. Upstream list it as a dependency. > > > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager > > Do I need to specify explicit requires? I think so. > > > 5. You can use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but you CAN NOT not both in the > > same spec. Read > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS > > for more information. > > Corrected. > > > > > Warnings: > > 1. Clean section is not required for Fedora 13 and above. > > Removed. > > > > > Please fix these issues, and update the spec and SRPM accordingly. > > Thanks, > Ankur Please update the spec and SRPM for any change you make, and give a new link for the SRPM. (the spec should also be updated, but with the same link).
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 > > > > Weird, it built in mock correctly. > Upstream list it as a dependency. > > > > > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager > > > > Do I need to specify explicit requires? > I think so. > > These are *not* build deps, they are runtime deps which rpm will figure out on its own. They do not need to be specified IMO. Ankur
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Missing build dependency: pygtk2 > > > > > > Weird, it built in mock correctly. > > Upstream list it as a dependency. > > > > > > > 4. Missing run-time dependencies: mobile-broadband-provider-info, ModemManager > > > > > > Do I need to specify explicit requires? > > I think so. > > > > > These are *not* build deps, they are runtime deps which rpm will figure out on > its own. They do not need to be specified IMO. > > Ankur [elad@E-Desktop noarch]$ rpm -qp --requires ppm-20110323-1.fc15.noarch.rpm/bin/sh /usr/bin/python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Doesn't seems that rpm figures it out automatically.
I recommend that you use a clean mock each time you build to ensure requires are met. If you reuse a mock environment without cleaning and rebuilding it you may have packages intalled in mock that are not installed in the koji or minimal install and you'll miss marking them as a required package. The python (perl, and other interpreted languages) have an internal dependancy generator but they only generate dependancies for other language related items. I do a final test in koji to ensure requires are met because koji always uses a clean minimal mock environment for the build.
(In reply to comment #8) > I recommend that you use a clean mock each time you build to ensure requires > are met. > > If you reuse a mock environment without cleaning and rebuilding it you may have > packages intalled in mock that are not installed in the koji or minimal install > and you'll miss marking them as a required package. > > The python (perl, and other interpreted languages) have an internal dependancy > generator but they only generate dependancies for other language related items. > > I do a final test in koji to ensure requires are met because koji always uses a > clean minimal mock environment for the build. IIRC mock cleans it's environment before doing the rebuild (I *think*). I was thinking about this app and had the realization that gnome shell does not currently feature applets. I'm not sure if this is worth packaging if it won't work with F15 even? I'm going to contact upstream and see what they have to say about this, and other queries, such as the directory placements etc. Thanks! regards, Ankur
Please note that the mobile-broadband-provider-info package contains xml files that ppm reads to get data about your provider. rpm is not smart enough to figure it out alone.
Updated: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/ppm/prepaid-manager-applet.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/ppm/prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.1.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Ankur
I think there is some breakage in the current upstream release. The accountdb.py is not even in the release tarball and therefore missing from the resulting RPM ... Nice to see the package here. Just read about it on planet-gnome.
upstream 0.0.1.2 fixes my issues mentioned in the last comment. For the package to be realy useful we need bug #710411.
There has been a new release of prepaid-manager http://honk.sigxcpu.org/con/GNOME_Prepaid_Manager_0_0_2.html
I've applied for co-maintainership for mobile-provider-info. Let's hope we can move this along quickly now :)
I was able to build and install it on a stock F16 system. Updated spec file to use .tar.xz extension, to latest 0.0.3.1 version number, and to include icons in the package. (However, the icon is not being when running the app runs, nor shown in the applications menu, don't know why) http://kuix.de/fedora/ppm/prepaid-manager-applet.spec http://kuix.de/fedora/ppm/prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm http://kuix.de/fedora/ppm/prepaid-manager-applet-0.0.3.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
... the icon worked after logout and login.
@Kai, seems to be that the original review request rests in piece for a long time. If you want to become the package maintainer, file a new review request and mark this one as a duplicate. @Ankur, I hope you agree...?
Sure. I think mobile-provider-info has been updated too.
What is blocking this package review at this time? What work is left to be done?
(In reply to comment #20) > What is blocking this package review at this time? > > What work is left to be done? IIRC, mobile-provider-info being updated was the only blocker, which seems to now be solved.
(In reply to comment #20) > What is blocking this package review at this time? > > What work is left to be done? As I already wrote, If you want to maintain this package, please open a new review request and mark this one as a duplicate.
> As I already wrote, If you want to maintain this package, please open a new > review request and mark this one as a duplicate. I can do that, I just don't understand why it's necessary. Is it because FranciscoD doesn't want to be the maintainer any longer, and the package maintainer must be the person who files the bug?
(In reply to comment #23) > Is it because FranciscoD doesn't want to be the maintainer any longer, and > the package maintainer must be the person who files the bug? Yes, you cannot migrate a review request to your own. Just file a new bug, and all is OK. I think I will do the review.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 848551 ***
If you are interested in this package, please get it from updates-testing and give feedback/karma. Necessary to get the package included in the regular update area. Please see bug 848551 comment 18. Thank you!