Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace.spec SRPM URL: http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace-1.1-2.fc15.src.rpm Description: Implementation of an algorithm based on the spatial curvature.
Please remember to incluse rpmlint on your requests. $ rpmlint ace-1.1-2.fc15.src.rpm ace.src: W: invalid-license GPL ace.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace-1.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. invalid license GPL check URL http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses change to GPLv2+ your %doc is empty. I think you should add README change to -> %doc README https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
(In reply to comment #1) > Please remember to incluse rpmlint on your requests. > > $ rpmlint ace-1.1-2.fc15.src.rpm > ace.src: W: invalid-license GPL > ace.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace-1.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > invalid license GPL > > check URL > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > > change to GPLv2+ > > your %doc is empty. > I think you should add README > > change to -> %doc README > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python Ok, corrections: SPEC URL: http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace.spec SRPM URL: http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/ace-1.5-2.fc15.src.rpm rpmlint: [MakeRPM@Quasard SRPMS]$ rpmlint ace-1.5-2.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
%defattr line is no longer needed unless you are building for the RPEL Remove Requires: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires Since RPM will find the dependency needed automaticly. BuildRoot line is not required unless building for the EPEL Also each time you update the SPEC file, bump up the release and note the change in the Changelog According to the homepage, the package is GPLv3+ Also the %clean section isn't needed except for EPEL Prefix: tag isn't needed either Running rpmlint on the RPM package(not SRPM) gives that you need a man page for it as well Description is too long http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too-long This is how mine would look if I did it, except with my name and email of course: http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/ace.spec The only issue that rpmlint gives me is that a man page is needed
(In reply to comment #3) > %defattr line is no longer needed unless you are building for the RPEL > > Remove Requires: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires > Since RPM will find the dependency needed automaticly. > > BuildRoot line is not required unless building for the EPEL > Also each time you update the SPEC file, bump up the release and note the > change in the Changelog OK. > > According to the homepage, the package is GPLv3+ OK. > > Also the %clean section isn't needed except for EPEL > Prefix: tag isn't needed either > OK. > Running rpmlint on the RPM package(not SRPM) gives that you need a man page for > it as well bash-4.2$ rpmlint ace-1.5-4.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > Description is too long > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too-long > OK. > This is how mine would look if I did it, except with my name and email of > course: > http://github.com/ndowens/Fedora-Rpms/raw/master/SPECS/ace.spec > > The only issue that rpmlint gives me is that a man page is needed OK. http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/ace.spec http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/RPMS/ace-1.5-4.fc15.noarch.rpm http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/RPMS/ace-1.5-4.fc15.src.rpm I hope this all right.
Changelog in English, please.
Ready! (In reply to comment #5) > Changelog in English, please.
(The changelog is actually only for changes related to packaging. Don't mix that with changes in the software. These belong in the update comment later, when you push the package.)
There are loads of strings in Spanish in the program. All comments are Spanish as well. I recommend to change that, but that has nothing to do with packaging. The manpage contains "Para salir presione la letra "q".", which is not useful at all. There are several spelling mistakes over the place, like "coma", "aceleration" or "Numer" all over the place. The package name must obey http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29 The Readme says GPLv3+, your Spec says 2+.
Can you please give this package a less generic name? There are already many pieces of software calling themselves "ace", including, but not limited to: * a proprietary packer, * the ADAPTIVE Communication Environment: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html * a "boot time configuration engine for appliances" which was previously in Fedora (but has been retired): https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ace etc.
Mauricio, any news here?
Yes, i am working in the theorical paper for presentation in a congress. After this i continue the RPM implementation. The paper is in spanish here: http://www.universodigital.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/curvatura1.pdf
In any case, both the package and the executable need to get some longer, less ambiguous name than "ace" (see comment #9). (If you can't think of anything more suitable, you can call them algoritmo-curvatura-espacial, which is both a valid RPM name and a valid executable name in Fedora.)
In case Volker or anybody else wonders: The paper is about solving the traveling salesman problem by a heuristic which simulates space-time curvature. (Thankfully, since I speak Italian and French fluently, I can make sense of Spanish.)
Fine, the code was full rewrited. The translation is complete too and the name is changed.
http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/src/pyace-3.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/src/pyace-3.0-1.fc16.src.rpm http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/source/browse/ace.spec
SRPM and Spec file are enough, don't submit the final package. The spec file must be called the same as package, as rpmlint will tell you. Please submit the files in a way they can be easily downloaded. Right now, these are not direct links. You can neither install with rpm -ivh this way, nor will fedora-review work. defattr is no longer necessary. Please handle the locales as described in the packaging guidelines.
(In reply to comment #16) > SRPM and Spec file are enough, don't submit the final package. http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/pyace-3.0-2.fc16.src.rpm http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/pyace.spec > > The spec file must be called the same as package, as rpmlint will tell you. > [cleve@Quasard src]$ rpmlint pyace-3.0-2.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [cleve@Quasard curvatura]$ rpmlint pyace.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > Please submit the files in a way they can be easily downloaded. Right now, > these are not direct links. You can neither install with rpm -ivh this way, nor > will fedora-review work. Sorry, my mistake. > > defattr is no longer necessary. Ok. > > Please handle the locales as described in the packaging guidelines. And Ok.
README: "pyACE is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. ... http://code.google.com/p/curvatura/ " Spec file: GPLv2+ http://curvatura.googlecode.com/ pyace.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.2 ['3.0-2.fc16', '3.0-2'] The examples should be labeled documentation. It is common to put the documentation first in the files section. The manpage should rather be %{_mandir}/man1/pyace.1* Please use the name macro consistently, meaning don't switch between %{name} and pyace. I think it'd be better to have %{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info instead of a specific Python version. I'd write .py* instead of .py, .pyc and .pyo, but it's not a blocker. There's a lot of slack in the tarball, by the way: - rpms and tarball in src - .git stuff Take a look at http://linux.die.net/man/1/git-archive for best practice on how to release a tarball with Git.
Any news here?
(In reply to comment #19) Yes, new version, let see. http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/pyace-4.0-1.fc16.src.rpm http://curvatura.googlecode.com/files/pyace.spec cleve ->curvatura$ rpmlint pyace.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I hope this time the package can be accepted, if not, some day! > Any news here?
I'm afraid you can't install %{python_sitelib}/operations and %{python_sitelib}/optimization. This is very generic. Install your package in one sub-directoy, for instance %{python_sitelib}/%{name}. You can use that in the files section than, which simplifies it a lot. There are a couple of typos/mistakes in README and the manpages, for instance: "pyACE is a program that resolve complete" -- That should be "resolves", I guess. "See the examples or visit the website for know how write the input files." "the Free Software Foundation, either version 2+ of the License, or (at your option) any later version." -- That doesn't make sense. That should be "either version 2 of the License ..." "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with ACE. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>." -- You don't ship a copy. Please add one. The changelog of the spec file is intended for changes in packaging. Don't use it to describe changes in your software. Why are you running find_lang twice? The description should be more detailled than the summary, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description I'd put an asterisk for the Python version number in %{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.7.egg-info. Please ship the examples by using the doc macro.
> "the Free Software Foundation, either version 2+ of the License, or > (at your option) any later version." -- That doesn't make sense. That should be > "either version 2 of the License ..." To be clear, the correct wording is: "the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." (There is no "version 2+", 2+ is an informal shortcut for "2 or later".)
How's it going here?
I am working with a mentor. I am making the RPM for new version.
Any news?
Mauricio is marked inactive in FAS and has not answered for more than a week. Closing (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews).