Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Hi, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k smb4k has been orphan at F15 and dropped on F16 , since nobody says if we have an alternative, I continue using smb4k for detect and mount windows Network and smb NAS. I had to update the package from 0.10.7 to smb4k-0.10.12, smb4k change to sourceforge and still maintained , if some problem appears. I reused same .spec with minor changes. So I'd like reinsert smb4k in Fedora . * Sat Dec 17 2011 Sérgio Basto <sergio> - 0.10.12-1 - New release. - drop upstreamed patch " a qtstring to fix a compile error". * Thu Dec 01 2011 Sérgio Basto <sergio> - 0.10.11-1 - update to 0.10.11 - patch a qtstring to fix a compile error. - update homepage project and url source.
Just running fedora-review, I get the following (just problem parts) I also note that that %patch0 lacks the prescribed comment. Don't really have time for a complete review. Hope this helps, --a Issues: [!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/smb4kconfigdialog.so smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/smb4knetworkbrowser.so smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/smb4ksearchdialog.so smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/kde4/smb4ksharesview.so smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/libsmb4kcore.so smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/libsmb4kdialogs.so [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Also uses both %{name} and smb4k in different places./a [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.src.rpm smb4k.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %patch1 smb4k.src:100: W: macro-in-comment %{_kde4_includedir} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint smb4k-debuginfo-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint smb4k-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm smb4k.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.10.11-1 ['0.10.12-1.fc18', '0.10.12-1'] smb4k.i686: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libsmb4kdialogs.so libsmb4kdialogs.so smb4k.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libsmb4kcore.so.3.2.0 exit smb4k.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsmb4kcore.so smb4k.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/smb4k-0.10.12/COPYING smb4k.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smb4k_umount smb4k.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smb4k_mount smb4k.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smb4k_sudowriter smb4k.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smb4k smb4k.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smb4k_kill 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. rpmlint smb4k-devel-0.10.12-1.fc18.i686.rpm smb4k-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mk/tmp/smb4k/smb4k-0.10.12.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : 26205c779461d1e0ec07b310a6cbabf1 MD5SUM upstream package : 4c5b4f905b8b5db0c15c1fc094abffa7
> [!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Alec, please revisit the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
First, this is just the output of the fedora-review tool. So your request should really not go to me, but to the writers of that tool. With that said, I think one aspect of this is that the package installs "private" libraries in public library paths. Since they are installed in /usr/lib{64} they will be found and exposed by the dynamic linker. That might be the reason that rpmlint complains: it basically either want fully versioned libraries (with proper sonames) in /usr/lib etc., or private libs in other directories outside of ld.so's paths (and where even an rpath might be acceptable). Whether this really is the rpmlint perspective, and if this is valid is up to others to judge. I'm just a newbie :)
It is a request to _you_, because you ought to know better than a tool that may not be 100% correct [yet]. A tool's output is useless if you cannot conclude whether the tool is right or wrong. The output you've copied here refers to library files in %{_libdir}/kde4/ which is a path that gives a big hint that these are very likely not libraries needed during development only. The other two libs, libsmb4kcore.so.3 and libsmb4kdialogs.so (!), are dependencies of the base smb4k package (query the built packages with rpm -qpR), so obviously there is a connection here, and one must be extra careful to not package them in a wrong subpackage that makes no sense.
Hi, I'm at work now , but this weekend I will reply to you , Thanks,
Any news on this? Regards,
Hi, I am back , I will update smb4k my propose to smb4k-1.0.1 today , I read comments here I will try do : - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. - devel package. - and some other Stay tuned what command do you run with fedora-review ?
Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-1.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm this is just first version some errors will be find.
(In reply to comment #7) > what command do you run with fedora-review ? fedora-review -b 799651 --mock-config fedora-16-x86_64 you will end with x86_64.rpm built on /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/ if you install mock for the first time read this before start: http://www.serjux.com/alps/how_to_use_mock.txt
OK, first pass review: naming: ok license: ok sources: ok $ md5sum *.bz2 c4b515e482ef7a7a834a3b660e1ee4d0 smb4k-1.0.1.tar.bz2 macros: ok (in general, some other suggestions below) scriptlets: NOT ok 1. MUST: fix scriptlets for icons, mimetypes, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database 2. MUST: change subpkg dependencies from Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package 3. SHOULD: I'd recommend changing Requires: %{_bindir}/kdesu to Requires: kdebase-runtime%{?_kde4_version: >= %{_kde4_version}} which will capture a minimal (versioned) kde dependency too 4. MUST change BuildRequires: cmake >= 2.6.0 BuildRequires: kdelibs-devel >= 4.4.0 to BuildRequires: kdelibs4-devel the latter is safer (esp say when/if kdelibs-devel upgrades to a potentially incomatible version 5), and it already pulls in cmake for you. 5. SHOULD omit # Make symlink relative snippet, it's not required anymore 6. MUST document need for the --add-category items in desktop-file-install call 7 SHOULD: in %files, change /usr/libexec/kde4/mounthelper to %{_kde4_libexecdir}/mounthelper 8. MUST drop -devel subpkg. there's only a lib symlink and no exported API/headers. Easier to just delete the symlink (or use %exclude), whatever works for you. OK, I think that's all I've got, if you can address all these items, should be close to approval.
Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-1.0.1-2.fc16.src.rpm OK I will prepare this changes. 1 done 2 not need by 8 3 done 5 done , but don't understand is not better a symlink relative ? # Make symlink relative pushd %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/HTML/en/smb4k/ ln -sf ../common popd 6 was already done 7 done 8 done 4 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/smb4k/files/Smb4K%20%28stable%20releases%29/1.0.1/readme.md/download Minimum Requirements --- * [K Desktop Environment (Libs & Runtime)], version 4.4 * [Qt], version 4.7 * [Samba], version 3.x (3.4 and higher recommended) so though kdelibs-devel >= 4.4.0 is appropriated
Re: 4 then please use BuildRequires: kdelibs4-devel >= 4.4 though I'd still argue the 4.4 is not needed, all versions of fedora shipping now satisfy that. Re: 5 I'm arguing just remove that snippet about links from the .spec altogether. It's not needed, and just clutters and complicates the .spec Re: 6 I see no explanation or documented reasons for --add-category Network --add-category FileTransfer --add-category FileManager did I overlook something? A simple comment in the .spec near the desktop-file-install call would be sufficient. did I overlook something?
Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-1.0.1-3.fc16.src.rpm Hi, (In reply to comment #12) > Re: 4 > then please use > BuildRequires: kdelibs4-devel >= 4.4 > though I'd still argue the 4.4 is not needed, all versions of fedora shipping > now satisfy that. Done, one rpm is not just for our systems, could be useful for RHEL and friends and even in other different distros, so accurate information is good . > Re: 5 > I'm arguing just remove that snippet about links from the .spec altogether. > It's not needed, and just clutters and complicates the .spec anyway the snippet is removed. But still the question, is not better a relative link ? , I will try do it upstream. > Re: 6 > I see no explanation or documented reasons for > --add-category Network > --add-category FileTransfer > --add-category FileManager > did I overlook something? > > A simple comment in the .spec near the desktop-file-install call would be > sufficient. Done ah need a explanation or documented reasons . I change to "Network, KDE and utilities". I document that, previous categories was not made by me! > did I overlook something? I think not
Should I do something ? to move on
MUST: The scriptlets still look a little wrong. * there should be no dependency on desktop-file-utils * you're missing icon scriptlets for oxygen too SHOULD: replace %files occurances of %{_kde4_datadir}/kde4/apps/ with %{_kde4_appsdir}/
Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc16.src.rpm Hi, for faster review, I did a patch of smb4k.spec from version 3 to 4 http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec.patch
Spec URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/smb4k.spec SRPM URL: http://www.serjux.com/smb4k/16/smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc16.src.rpm
Thanks, I believe that takes care of all blocker MUST items. APPROVED
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smb4k New Branches: f15 f16 f17 Owners: sergiomb
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smb4k Branches: f15 Owners: sergiomb InitialCC: KDE New Branches: f16 f17 According https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k is orphan since Fedora 15 As I read on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages, "For unretirement of branches, please simply state which branches should be unretired (and raise the fedora-cvs flag as usual)" I want unretirement of a package on f15 branch and add branches f16 and f17 . but I don't have permission to raise fedora-cvs flag ! "The Package Name field is mandatory. Please only include other fields which need to be changed or updated. In the Owners field list the branch owner and any comaintainers." Well, Rex Dieter, you are welcome as comaintainers or owner, just don't know what is your fas account . "Please note that when the new branch is created, ownership or CC information will not be copied to the new branch, so be sure to specify in the request all of the owners and initialCC members the new branch should have." how I do that ? I arrive here : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Packaging/Requests so InitialCC may be KDE ?
Don't worry about me, I'll probably add myself afterward. I would recommend leaving InitialCC: blank, the "KDE" entry there isn't valid (though it probably would be nice if we created some kde-sig meta-user and/or group someday).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smb4k Branches: f15 Owners: sergiomb InitialCC: New Branches: f16 f17
Unretired, but sergiomb is not a sponsored Packager member in FAS.
Oh, that may explain why FE-NEEDSPONSOR was added (briefly, then removed for some reason). I'll kick the sponsor piece now. OK, I think you can go into pkgdb, and take the pkg yourself now, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k (login, and click "take ownership" button)
(In reply to comment #24) > Oh, that may explain why FE-NEEDSPONSOR was added (briefly, then removed for > some reason). I block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, after I read the historic in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=799651, and saw that first thing on this bug was block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, so I though that I made a mistake (make same block for the second time) so remove block FE-NEEDSPONSOR . I don't understood, Should I need two SPONSORS (one for review and other) ? but I have to go now ... > I'll kick the sponsor piece now. > > OK, I think you can go into pkgdb, and take the pkg yourself now, > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/smb4k > > (login, and click "take ownership" button) Thanks, I am proud to become a member of fedora packagers. I will do the rest soon. Thanks.
You need a sponsor to join the packager group, but part of the job of the sponsor is to do your first review, and to sponsor you only after that review was successful. So FE-NEEDSPONSOR should not be removed before the review is actually complete.
(In reply to comment #23) > Unretired, but sergiomb is not a sponsored Packager member in FAS. Jon Ciesla , I got 3 problems $ fedpkg build Building smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc18 for rawhide Created task: 3969955 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3969955 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 3969955 build (rawhide, /smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): free 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): free -> open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 3969956 buildSRPMFromSCM (/smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 3969955 build (rawhide, /smb4k:3e41061bae0aaa19ffbe0368013cc315267d0b26): open (x86-01.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: package smb4k is blocked for tag f18 0 free 0 open 1 done 1 failed fedpkg switch-branch f17 Could not execute switch_branch: Unknown remote branch f17 fedpkg switch-branch f16 Could not execute switch_branch: Unknown remote branch f16
OK, I took care of unblocking the pkg, the last scm change request wasn't valid because you weren't sponsored yet. let's try again: Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smb4k Owners: sergiomb New Branches: f16 f17
smb4k built for rawhide ! http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=312263 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3839
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: smb4k Owners: sergiomb New Branches: f16 f17
Git done (by process-git-requests).
smb4k built also for f17, f16 and f15. Now, shouldn't appears on pending for updates ? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F17/pending https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F16/pending https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F15/pending Thanks to all,
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Submit_Package_as_Update_in_Bodhi
smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc17
smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc16
smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-4.fc15
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc15
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc16
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17
Package smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-5587/smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc16 and smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc15 also has been pushed to testing you may do: yum install --enablerepo=updates-testing smb4k (as root) or yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing smb4k (as root, if you are in F15 with smb4k installed) .
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
smb4k-1.0.1-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.