Spec URL: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/tbo.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/comzeradd/autoverse/fedora-15/SRPMS/tbo-0.98-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: TBO is an easy and fun program to draw comic and make your presentations funnier. rpmlint tbo-0.98-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I'm not yet a Fedora packager, so I'll need a sponsor.
Just some comments: 1. Your build requirements are incomplete (missing at least GTK+). Use mock (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds) to test builds in a sandbox where all the build dependencies must be listed correctly. 2. I think that you need to use the %find_lang macro (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files) for the locale file. This will also futureproof the spec in case new translations are added to future versions. 3. Desktop files need to be installed using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop). 4. If you need a sponsor, you need to add "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" to the blocked bugs for this review request.
1.as Veeti said, gtl2-devel and intltool are needed when building the package. 2.AUTHORS and ChangeLog should be included in %files.See here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation
sorry gtk2-devel is needed but not gtl2-devel, a mistake.
Thanx for the guidance. Spec and SRPM updated.
More comments: 1. Remove the --vendor option from desktop-file-install: according to the guidelines, it shouldn't be used: "For new packages, do not apply a vendor tag to desktop files." 2. You might want to fix the description text: "comic" should be "comics". 3. You should start updating the %changelog section every time you make changes and post the new spec & SRPM here so that reviewers and commenters can keep track of the changes you've made. (You also need to bump the Release number every time you do so.)
As you have used %find_lang, it's best to remove #%lang(es) %{_datadir}/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/%{name}.mo from the specfile.There are potentially-multiline-macros in this comment.https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Spec_file_pieces_explained
I updated both of them Spec URL: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/tbo.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/comzeradd/autoverse/fedora-15/SRPMS/tbo-0.98-2.fc15.src.rpm
some other comments 1.SRPM has been updated, but specfile is still original. 2.Both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} appear in the specfile.Pick one style and use it consistently. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Macros 3.Please use spaces instead of tabs(line 31 and 32).Sorry I can't fand the references.
Thanx again. I updated both the SRPM and Spec file. Spec URL: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/tbo.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/comzeradd/autoverse/fedora-15/SRPMS/tbo-0.98-3.fc15.src.rpm rpmlint tbo-0.98-3.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Your package looks almost fine. If you plan to maintain it for EPEL < 5 too, please clean the buildroot at the beginning of %install. Otherwise, you can drop the BuildRoot field and the %clean section. Have you already done some informal reviews of other packager's submissions? This is usually required to show your (basic) understanding of the packaging guidelines, and to attract sponsors. ;) Here are some further information: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Thank you for pointing this out. Christoph has reviewed another package of mine (bug 716299) and also suggested that i do informal reviews to other packages.
I'm looking through some of the older NEEDSPONSOR tickets and found this one. Turns out that it shouldn't really be in that category since you're already sponsored. I took a look at the spec and it seems clean, but the URLs that point to the upstream source and web site are both invalid.
You are not yet in the packagers group, as far as I can see. I will set the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker again.
I've been already in the packagers group :) I'll update this package so we can have it on repos.
Any progress here? Once you provide up-to-date spec and srpm, I'll take the review.
I'm in touch with the upstream developer and it seems that the project is pretty dead (last commit 1 year ago) and there is no easy building tarball at the moment. So.. I'm closing this bug. I'll monitor the project and I'll reopen it when I comes back to life.