Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/writetype.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: WriteType is a free (and open source) program that helps younger students experience success in writing. It is designed especially for schools to transform technology from a barrier into an opportunity for success. Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3014460 Rpmlint Output:- For RPM file: $ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/writetype-1.2.130-1.fc14.noarch.rpm writetype.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writetype Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For SRPM file: $ rpmlint -i SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. For SPEC file: $ rpmlint -i SPECS/writetype.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
NEED A SPONSOR. List of My Packages waiting for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687875 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688421 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692131 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698362
Some notes: 1. The patch needs a comment describing its requirement. 2. You no longer need the buildroot tag, and the clean section. 3. It's shebang, not sheband ;) 4. In the files section, at the egginfo part, use py?.?.egg-info, it'll make updates easier. 5. Do check if the python-setuptools is also a runtime requirement once. 6. I don't see a LICENSE file in the files section. Please request upstream to include one. 7. You haven't handled the desktop file. Please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files for details 8. Isn't there an icon (Since there is a desktop file?) The spec looks okay at a glance, but a detailed review might reveal more issues. Regards, Ankur
Updated:- Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/writetype.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-2.fc14.src.rpm Also, I have sent a request upstream to add a LICENSE file. @Ankur Thank You, for the package review and also for the time you have spent for this.
Prabin, You're most welcome. I wanted to point out that submitting packages isn't enough for sponsorship. You need to do unofficial reviews of as many packages as you can, and mention them in your reviews as well. The idea is that a sponsor needs to measure your understanding of the packaging guidelines before approving you. I think this page details it out: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Thanks, Ankur
Updated (Added upstream License):- Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/writetype.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-3.fc14.src.rpm
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - 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: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) 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 - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. The license is GPLv3+ and not GPLv3. (notice the line "or (at your option) any later version.") 2. Strange premissions on the desktop file. Why? 3. Doesn't build in mock, missing build requirement on desktop-file-utils -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Updated package:- Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/writetype.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-5.fc15.src.rpm > 1. The license is GPLv3+ and not GPLv3. (notice the line "or (at your option) > any later version.") Updated. > 2. Strange premissions on the desktop file. Why? After extraction from tarball file permission for writetype.desktop is "755". Now, in Makefile file under install section, code to install desktop file is: "cp writetype.desktop $(ICONDIR)/writetype.desktop" That why, the file permission which should have to 644 is 755. > 3. Doesn't build in mock, missing build requirement on desktop-file-utils Updated. But, here I like to mention one thing that pyttsx is required for this package which in under review request[1]. Thou, pyttsx is not mandatory since enchant and festival are already there performing similar function. - [1]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702998
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. - 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. writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/espeakInterface.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/listWidget.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/ttsInterface.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/festivalInterface.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/pyttsxInterface.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/writetype/main.py 0644L /usr/bin/python writetype.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writetype 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings. The non-executable-script error is because of the (un-needed) shabang in the library files. I don't think it's a major issue, you can make a patch to remove the shabang from these files if you want. the no-manual-page error can be ignored. + final provides and requires are sane: writetype-1.2.130-5.fc16.noarch.rpm mimehandler(application/x-writetype) writetype = 1.2.130-5.fc16 = /bin/bash PyQt4 enchant festival python(abi) = 2.7 pyttsx 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 writetype-1.2.130-5.fc16.src.rpm = python2-devel python-setuptools desktop-file-utils rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 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 Seems fine, APPROVED. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
> I don't think it's a major issue, you can make a patch to remove > the shabang from these files if you want. Updated package:- Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/writetype.spec SRPM URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/writetype-1.2.130-6.fc15.src.rpm > Seems fine, APPROVED. Thank You!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: writetype Short Description: Light word processor Owners: prabindatta Branches: f14 f15 f16 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
writetype-1.2.130-6.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/writetype-1.2.130-6.fc14
writetype-1.2.130-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/writetype-1.2.130-6.fc15
writetype-1.2.130-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/writetype-1.2.130-6.el6
writetype-1.2.130-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
writetype-1.2.130-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
writetype-1.2.130-6.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.
writetype-1.2.130-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.