Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/devtodo2/devtodo2-1.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org/packages/devtodo2/devtodo2-2.1-1.20120711git8dee6.fc17.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4232758 Description: DevTodo2 is a program to display and manage a hierarchical, prioritized list of outstanding work, or just reminders. This is a complete new version of DevTodo, which has a new command (todo2 instead of todo) and a new file format, although it can import the old file format. Fedora Account System Username: puiterwijk
I think I should also notice that I didn't use the provided Makefile since that one uses the GO compiler built by Google, which hasn't been packaged yet (there has been an attempt, but they suggested dropping it that moment). That's why I just wrote the three compilation lines in the spec file to compile it with gcc-go.
I'll review it.
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is not silent: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/devtodo2-* ../SRPMS/devtodo2-2.1-1.20120711git8dee6.fc18.src.rpm devtodo2.ppc: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-1.20120711git8dee6 ['2.1-1.20120711git8dee6.fc18', '2.1-1.20120711git8dee6'] ^^^ Please, fix %changelog entry according to the version/release. devtodo2-debuginfo.ppc: E: debuginfo-without-sources ^^^ In seems that debuginfo extractor can't pick up Go sources right now. I think we may ignore this warning for now. devtodo2.src: W: invalid-url Source1: goopt-20120711git8dd57.tar.gz devtodo2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: devtodo2-2.1-20120711git8dee6.tar.gz ^^^ Thats' ok - we should blame github for that. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license (ASL 2.0). 0 No licensing info provided in tarball. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, fix License field and change the only %changelog entry according to the %{version} and %{release}. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. p.s. I'm terribly sorry for delaying with this.
Thanks for reviewing. I will fix these issues before pushing. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: devtodo2 Short Description: Manage a prioritized list of to do items organized by directory Owners: puiterwijk Branches: el5 el6 f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.fc17
Package devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.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 devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11543/devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.fc17 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
devtodo2-2.1-3.20120711git8dee6.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.