Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/gitflow.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A collection of Git extensions to provide high-level repository operations for Vincent Driessen's [branching model](http://nvie.com/git-model "original blog post"). For the best introduction to get started with `git flow`, please read Jeff Kreeftmeijer's blog post: http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/why-arent-you-using-git-flow/ Or have a look at one of these screen casts: * [A short introduction to git-flow] (http://vimeo.com/16018419) (by Mark Derricutt) * [On the path with git-flow] (http://codesherpas.com/screencasts/on_the_path_gitflow.mov) (by Dave Bock) Fedora Account System Username: ralph rpmlint output --------------- --- ~/rpmbuild » rpmlint {SPECS,SRPMS}/gitflow* SPECS/gitflow.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2.tar.gz gitflow.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Driessen's -> Dressiness's gitflow.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP gitflow.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nvie -> vie, vine, nevi gitflow.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2.tar.gz 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Hi, the license tag is wrong, this is BSD like, not LGPL2
- I also think the require on util-linux should go, this is already installed by default. - there should be a comment on getting the tarball ( even if it just say "download from this url on github ), see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL - comment on patch is missing, ie, is there a plan to merge it upstream ( given the patch, i doubt, but i am sure that a cleaver shell snippet could be used to detect if the good directory )
And there seems to be newer version of it on github, even if having no versionned tarball do not help to see that :/
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [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 would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/835657-gitflow/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [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. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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: [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.23 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.23 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.23 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/835657-gitflow/results/gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/835657-gitflow/results/gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Erreur : Paquet : gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch (/gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch) Requiert : shflags Vous pouvez essayer d'utiliser --skip-broken pour contourner le problème Vous pouvez essayer d'exécuter : rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.src.rpm gitflow.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Driessen's -> Dressiness's gitflow.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP gitflow.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nvie -> vie, vine, nevi gitflow.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/gitflow/gitflow-shFlags /usr/share/shflags/shflags gitflow.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-flow gitflow.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Driessen's -> Dressiness's gitflow.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP gitflow.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nvie -> vie, vine, nevi gitflow.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh shflags util-linux Provides -------- gitflow-0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm: gitflow = 0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 835657 External plugins:
As for the failure related to shflags, I just marked it as stable in bodhi and created a buildroot override.
Thanks for the review, btw. Here's a new release with the changes you pointed out. SPEC: http://threebean.org/rpm/gitflow.spec SRPM: http://threebean.org/rpm/gitflow-0.4.2.20120723git53e9c76-1.fc17.src.rpm Changes: * Mon Jul 23 2012 Ralph Bean <rbean> - 0.4.2.20120723git53e9c76-1 - New checkout from upstream git for review process. * Mon Jul 23 2012 Ralph Bean <rbean> - 0.4.2.20120626gitab7fda2-2 - Changed License field to BSD - Dropped requirement on util-linux. - Added comments for Source0 and Patch0 - Using macro for %%{gitdate} as well as %%{githash}
Wouldn't a require on git make sense ?
Anyway, if we except the last comment, the package is good, and I am sure you will add the missing requires, so let's approve it.
A requires on git does make sense. :) I'll add it before I create an update. Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gitflow Short Description: Extensions providing operations for V. Driessen's branching model Owners: ralph Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Updates released - http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gitflow