Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlando.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: A set of syntax extensions for Erlang. Koji scratchbuild for F-18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4078450 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.ppc.rpm ../SRPMS/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm erlang-erlando.ppc: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib ^^^ this one is a false positive (stdlib as a trigger) erlang-erlando.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-erlando.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ this one is tricky. All erlang packages must be installed into %{_libdir}/erlang/lib so despite of the fact that some of them contains only arch-independent data they all must be build as arch-dependent. I plan to fix than but I wouldn't hold my breath. erlang-erlando.src: W: strange-permission rebar 0764L ^^^ minor issue. I'll report upstream. erlang-erlando.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rabbitmq-erlando-rabbitmq_v2_8_2-0-g002ce5e.tar.gz ^^^ blame github for that, not me. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: This app is growing popularity among Erlang developers quite fast (I'm using it as well).
I'll take this on
I note cut.erl and do.erl are licensed with ERPL while the others seem to be Mozilla public license. I believe you need to state this in the License tag.
(In reply to comment #2) > I note cut.erl and do.erl are licensed with ERPL while the others seem to be > Mozilla public license. I believe you need to state this in the License tag. Yep, good catch.
Fixed licensing info: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlando.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
This package is APPROVED Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm erlang-erlando.src: W: strange-permission rebar 0764L erlang-erlando.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rabbitmq-erlando-rabbitmq_v2_8_2-0-g002ce5e.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm erlang-erlando.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-erlando.i686: E: no-binary erlang-erlando.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [x]: 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 See: None [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm erlang-erlando.src: W: strange-permission rebar 0764L erlang-erlando.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rabbitmq-erlando-rabbitmq_v2_8_2-0-g002ce5e.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint erlang-erlando-2.8.2-1.fc18.i686.rpm erlang-erlando.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib erlang-erlando.i686: E: no-binary erlang-erlando.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins:
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-erlando Short Description: A set of syntax extensions for Erlang Owners: peter Branches: el5 el6 f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc16
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el6
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc17
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el5
erlang-erlando-2.8.2-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: erlang-erlando New Branches: epel7 Owners: peter InitialCC: erlang-sig
erlang-erlando-2.8.7-4.gite3f115b.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-erlando-2.8.7-4.gite3f115b.el7
erlang-erlando-2.8.7-4.gite3f115b.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.