SRPM link: http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/xcftools-1.0.7-3.fc16.src.rpm Spec file link http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/xcftools.spec rpmlint output: rpmlint -i xcftools-1.0.7-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm xcftools-debuginfo-1.0.7-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm xcftools-1.0.7-3.fc16.src.rpm ../xcftools.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Required for phatch.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3783488
I will take this review
%defattr(-,root,root,-) is no longer required in the %files section Wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific in the files section %{_mandir}/man1/xcf*.1.gz %{_mandir}/da/man1/xcf*.1.gz When building I get the following errors x 2. Can you just confirm that this is expected: /bin/sh: command substitution: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file /bin/sh: command substitution: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file /bin/sh: command substitution: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file /bin/sh: command substitution: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file
Thanks, >Wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific in the files section Sure, will change it. >When building I get the following errors x 2. Can you just confirm that this is I built it on f16 via rpmbuild and the build went through. Rawhide builds ok as well. Will give it a try again.
Looks like the errors are there in koji build as well but they are not getting propagated back to rpmbuild. I will look into it. Thanks
Here is the explanation of the error, In configure script generated by autoconf, there is a variable called program_transform_name initialized to s,x,x. This variable is intended to be passed to sed to modify the executable name. While doing a ./configure, if the user passes --program-prefix=xyz, then the program_transform_name is modified as s,^,xyz. And if we do not pass --program-prefix at all, it takes the default (s,x,x). Now the makefile which is using this variable should not be affected if --program-prefix is not passed at all. From rpmbuild, calling %configure expands to ./configure <someoptions> --program-prefix= .Since an empty prefix is passed, program_transform_name gets assigned to s&^&&. The makefile that uses the program_transform_name variable encounters the command substitution error. It is not necessary have to use program_transform_name variable in the Makefile because configure is passing a empty prefix anyway. I have created a patch that modifies the makefile to just copy the binaries into the destination directories instead of trying to use the program_transform_name variable. Spec file: http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/xcftools.spec Srpm file: http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/xcftools-1.0.7-4.fc15.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3800542
This package is APPROVED Legend: [+] OK [!] Requires attention [-] Not applicable [N] Not evaluated Required ======== [+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [+] License file must be included in %doc [+] The spec file must be written in American English [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source fd960b6470fb23520fc4b1ade6cf6e25 OK [+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [+] Proper use of ExcludeArch [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package [+] A package must own all directories that it creates directories under this [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line [+] Each package must consistently use macros [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [+] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Should Items ============ [-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to include it [-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the package spec if available [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [N] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [-] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
Thanks, Please unretire devel branch. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xcftools New Branches: f17 Owners: narasim
Thanks for the review.
Git done (by process-git-requests). Unretired, created f17. Take ownership.
xcftools-1.0.7-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xcftools-1.0.7-4.fc17
xcftools-1.0.7-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
phatch-0.2.7-10.fc17,xcftools-1.0.7-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/phatch-0.2.7-10.fc17,xcftools-1.0.7-5.fc17
phatch-0.2.7-10.fc17, xcftools-1.0.7-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
phatch-0.2.7-10.fc17, xcftools-1.0.7-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.