Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/freexl.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/freexl-1.0.0-0.1.a.fc16.src.rpm Description: FreeXL is a library to extract valid data from within an Excel spreadsheet (.xls) Design goals: * simple and lightweight * stable, robust and efficient * easily and universally portable * completely ignore any GUI-related oddity Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3564529 rpmlint: [makerpm@lenovo-muw freexl]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/freexl*1.0.0-0.1.a.fc16.x86_64.rpm freexl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xls -> ls, xis, x ls 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [makerpm@lenovo-muw freexl]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/freexl-1.0.0-0.1.a.fc16.src.rpm freexl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xls -> ls, xis, x ls 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Spec looks good. Very thorough. One question. The website says this version is "Stable" but you're using a pre-release type Release: tag.
I just took the version number as upstream put it: 1.0.0a As far as I get it, this is the way to go: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release Please correct me, if I'm wrong!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages I think you're right! A 1.0.0b was released on the 29th of December. It is not on the frontpage though. http://www.gaia-gis.it/FreeXL/freexl-sources/ If the schema is kept like this, I can put that all in "Version".
(In reply to comment #2) > I just took the version number as upstream put it: 1.0.0a > > As far as I get it, this is the way to go: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Version_in_Release > > Please correct me, if I'm wrong! The guidelines could be more clear here. This is definitely a post-release package so we need to start there[1], however, in that section of the guidelines it goes back to showing examples of the progression from pre-release, release, and then post-release. The first post-release examples is: foo-1.1.0-2.GA1 (post release, GA1) Of course this one starts at Release "2" because the "1" was used by the initial release of the package. Since this package didn't exist in Fedora yet it would start at "1" [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages (In reply to comment #3) > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages > > I think you're right! A 1.0.0b was released on the 29th of December. It is not > on the frontpage though. > > http://www.gaia-gis.it/FreeXL/freexl-sources/ > > If the schema is kept like this, I can put that all in "Version". No, I think the "b" still goes in the release field. Richard
Kevin Fenzi suggested to try the first approach from the guidelines: "Properly ordered simple versions. These are usually due to quick bugfix releases, such as openssl-0.9.6b or gkrellm-2.1.7a. As new versions come out, the non-numeric tag is properly incremented (e.g. openssl-0.9.6c) or the numeric version is increased and the non-numeric tag is dropped (openssl-0.9.7). In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted in the Version: field." ... and switch to the other approach and epoch, should upstream not follow the ordered schema any more. That'd be: Version: 1.0.0a Release: 1%{?dist}
Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/freexl.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/freexl-1.0.0a-1.fc15.src.rpm
Ok, now I see it. That should probably be highlighted somehow to make it more evident. I'll try to do my review tomorrow. Are you setup as a contributor on RPM Fusion? If so I could use a review of: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2112 As long as you don't have an aversion to the non-free repo. SMESH itself it GPL licensed but it links against OCE which has a license that was determined to be non-free by Fedora legal.
No, I'm not. I can register, but I guess you need some sort of privileges, right?
Spec looks good but the SRPM link seems to be broken. Also, shouldn't you go ahead and package 1.0.0b?
I took a diff and 1.0.0b only has build fixes for Windows and newer Autotools. The frontpage also doesn't list it, so I decided to ignore it. Sorry for the dead link -- it's working now.
+: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: Good [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license: [+] license file is included in %doc: LICENSE [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (ca9241384901b7d47ae01981561d2da5) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [N] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [N] package functions as described: Didn't test. [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [+] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts *** APPROVED ***
Thank you for the quick review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: freexl Short Description: Library to extract data from within an Excel spreadsheet Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
freexl-1.0.0a-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freexl-1.0.0a-3.el6
freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc15
freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc16
freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
freexl-1.0.0a-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
freexl-1.0.0a-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.