Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/mbrowse.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/mbrowse-0.4.3-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Mbrowse is a graphical SNMP MIB browser based on GTK+ and net-snmp. Tested Mock build for F14, F15, Rawhide and EPEL 6 (x86_64) plus: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3204507
First off, do you need a sponsor?
No, I don't need a sponsor. See https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/volter or query zodbot on IRC (fas, fasinfo). The FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag also isn't set.
The group tag is no longer necessary Also running rpmlint on the RPM gives me there is no man pages for binary https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages.
Can you cite the ruling or the section in the guidelines concerning the group tag? Well, the guidelines say "should". Since it is a graphical application, I don't regard it as terribly useful. There actually happens to be an old manpage from Debian: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/man1/mbrowse.1.html. I'll consider including it, because there is no other help. I'll have to look over it, if it is still up to date. Upstream seemingly had it with 0.3.1 but I can't find a trace of it in trunk. http://mbrowse.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=mbrowse/mbrowse;a=blob;f=debian/changelog;h=94fd1f123a54026003befc0959d04774c39656f9
Here is a bit about the Group tag, it is more of a talk: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2008-September/005091.html Also I didn't notice the man page either. Supposedly it said adding a man page fixed bug number. But I even looked for the bug that it was referencing and I didn't see that either.
Concerning the group tag: I've got like 10 packages and nobody ever mentioned the group tag on review. Every other package, I've seen so far, also has it. The guidelines still mention the group tag in the context of documentation: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Documentation It would be interesting to clarify that, nevertheless. http://www.geofrogger.net/review/mbrowse.spec http://www.geofrogger.net/review/mbrowse-0.4.3-2.fc15.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3343315 * Sun Sep 11 2011 Volker Fröhlich <volker27> - 0.4.3-2 - Add Debian manpage
The Group tag is not necessary in current Fedora, it is necessary in EPEL though, and it doesn't hurt in Fedora either. (In fact, RPM can and will still process it, it just won't complain anymore if it's not there, and just fill in "Unspecified".)
OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on source and binaries $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/*.rpm mbrowse.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmp -> snip, snap, sump mbrowse.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmp -> snip, snap, sump 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint mbrowse.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. False positives on spelling. No problems here. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 9857a88d2e6246384587350a647e605d OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on F15. OK - MUST: no ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: calls ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - 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, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid It would be nice if there were a desktop icon, but upstream doesn't ship one, so we don't have anything to go on. Even the icon elements in the GUI are hardcoded in C (ugh :-) I've tested this on F15, against an EL6 host running snmpd, and it works fine. Issues: The Categories field in mbrowse.desktop should be "Network" instead of "System". My opinion on the man page: Since this is a GUI app, I don't think it's *really* necessary, and my preference is to just follow upstream here. Maybe the Debian folks never got it upstreamed in the first place? If that's the case, would you mind filing this with upstream? Regardless, it's a SHOULD, not a MUST, so it's up to you as the packager whether to include it in your package or not. APPROVED
As of the icon, I've been e-mailing upstream. They don't have one, but they'd happily accept one. Sadly I neither feel very creative nor do I know somebody who does. The Debian manpage actually was part of 0.3.1 (see above comments for details). I don't know why they dropped it. I went through the manpage and corrected some small things. It is of course a GUI application, but it doesn't supply any help and the help you get from the manpage is still right. I'll ask upstream. I'll change the desktop file. Thanks again for reviewing!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mbrowse Short Description: GUI SNMP MIB browser Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mbrowse-0.4.3-3.el6
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc16
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc15
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
mbrowse-0.4.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.