Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The bvi is a display-oriented editor for binary files, based on the vi text-editor. If you are familiar with vi, just start the editor and begin to edit! A bmore program is also included in the package. Hello, I'm submiting this new package. Have a nice day.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/bvi-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. >Don't submit packages without any unjustified rpmlint error. bmore.help is not a documentation file, it contains the help summary for bmore, displayed using the 'h' key. As a result, this file can't be considered to be as an optional one, you can't move it where you want without any consequence. Please explain *why* you want to move this file elsewhere.
(In reply to comment #1) > $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/bvi-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm > bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. > >Don't submit packages without any unjustified rpmlint error. Okay, so I can't fix it now, I've contacted the developper about this error. > bmore.help is not a documentation file, it contains the help summary for bmore, > displayed using the 'h' key. As a result, this file can't be considered to be > as an optional one, you can't move it where you want without any consequence. > Please explain *why* you want to move this file elsewhere. I fixed an other rpmlint warning by this way, but I didn't seen help function was broken. $ rpmlint *.rpm bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more bvi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined bvi.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit bvi-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings. >bvi.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib That was the rpmlint warning I tryed to fix by moving the help file. It is currently located here: -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib64/bmore.help I don't know how to move it without break help function. Latest release: Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-2.fc16.src.rpm
Created attachment 544493 [details] Disable binary stripping
Created attachment 544497 [details] Install help file in %{_datadir}, to comply with the FHS
I've just attached two patch: - the first one to solve the debuginfo issue; - the second one to install the help file in %{_datadir}/%{name}, to comply with the FHS.
Hello, thanks a lot for these patchs. So, this is the latest release: Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-3.fc16.src.rpm $ rpmlint *.rpm bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined bvi.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING bvi.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview bvi.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.
Don't forget to comment the patches. This will help you foremost to maintain this package. (In reply to comment #6) > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro > `''' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: > macro `--' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: > macro `M"' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: > macro `S"' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: > macro `N"' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: > macro `T"' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: > macro `L'' not defined > bvi.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: > macro `R'' not defined I don't know if it is really relevant. The impacted man pages seems to be correctly displayed. I think you could ignore these warnings finally. Anyway, don't forget to fix the bmore.1 file: the path of the bmore.help file specified in this man page is bad (/usr/local/share/bmore.help).
Hello, this is the latest release: Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-4.fc16.src.rpm
About the patches: # Fix empty debuginfo package : Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-no_strip.patch # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help : Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-fix_help_install.patch You shoudn't use the version macro in patches, otherwise you'll have to rename them each time bvi is updated. Just set the version explicetely, it's also a way to keep an history of the included patches: # Fix empty debuginfo package : Patch0: %{name}-1.3.2-no_strip.patch # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help : Patch1: %{name}-1.3.2-fix_help_install.patch Instead of using sed to fix the help file path in the man page, you'd better merge this fix in the bvi-1.4.2-fix_help_install.patch file. By the way, just for information, you can use a different separator (| or @, for example) in sed, instead of escaping slashes: sed -i "s|/usr/local/share/bmore.help|/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help|" bmore.1 sed -i "s@/usr/local/share/bmore.help@/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help@" bmore.1
Hello (In reply to comment #9) > About the patches: > # Fix empty debuginfo package : > Patch0: %{name}-%{version}-no_strip.patch > # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help : > Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-fix_help_install.patch > You shoudn't use the version macro in patches, otherwise you'll have to rename > them each time bvi is updated. Just set the version explicetely, it's also a > way to keep an history of the included patches: > # Fix empty debuginfo package : > Patch0: %{name}-1.3.2-no_strip.patch > # Move from /usr/lib64/bmore.help to /usr/share/bvi/bmore.help : > Patch1: %{name}-1.3.2-fix_help_install.patch Done > Instead of using sed to fix the help file path in the man page, you'd better > merge this fix in the bvi-1.4.2-fix_help_install.patch file. > By the way, just for information, you can use a different separator (| or @, > for example) in sed, instead of escaping slashes: > sed -i "s|/usr/local/share/bmore.help|/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help|" bmore.1 > sed -i "s@/usr/local/share/bmore.help@/usr/share/bvi/bmore.help@" bmore.1 Okay, but I don't know how to specify an other file to merge this fix in the same patch file... so I've fixed the sed statement. Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-5.fc16.src.rpm
Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. bvi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bmore -> bore, more, b more bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 2: warning: macro `''' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 36: warning: macro `--' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `M"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `S"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `N"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bvi.1.gz 48: warning: macro `T"' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `L'' not defined bvi.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/bmore.1.gz 56: warning: macro `R'' not defined bvi.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/bvi-1.3.2/COPYING bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bview bvi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bvedit 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. >>The warnings can be safely ignored [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. >>>All the sources files specify in their header comment a GPLv2 or more license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. >>MD5 sum=4257305ffb27177a6d5208b2df4ca92d OK [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Once the License tag fixed to "GPLv2+", I will approve your package.
Hello, this is the latest release: Spec URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi.spec SRPM URL: http://fantom.fedorapeople.org/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16.src.rpm
APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bvi Short Description: Display-oriented editor for binary files Owners: fantom Branches: f15 f16 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bvi-1.3.2-6.el6
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
bvi-1.3.2-6.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
bvi-1.3.2-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.