Bug 854256 - Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
Summary: Review Request: tipcutils - Utils package required to configure TIPC
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 953379
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 953379
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-09-04 13:51 UTC by Erik Hugne
Modified: 2013-10-19 14:42 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
: 953379 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-04-18 11:35:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Erik Hugne 2012-09-04 13:51:18 UTC
Spec URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils-2.0.3-0.src.rpm
Description: 
Hi.
Fedora seems to be missing a package containing the userspace tools necessary to configure TIPC (/net/tipc).

This package contains the tipc-config program, and also tipc-pipe, which is a netcat-like program that runs over TIPC links.

Fedora Account System Username: ehugne

Comment 1 Michael S. 2012-09-06 05:59:41 UTC
Hi,

since you are not in the packager group, you need a sponsor first 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

On your spec, there is various issue with it :
- it doesn have a changelog
- you should use macro for path, rather than for well know executable

- BuildArch: x86_64  is wrong, unless there is a reason and then it should be explained

- %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/configure
you should use the macro %configure, or if it doesn't work, ./configure

- the license file should be shipped as %doc

- BuildRoot is not needed, %clean eithe,r as seen on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean ( the rest of the rules are also on this page, so I recommend to read it carefully )

There is surely other stuff to fix, but I do not want to overwhelm you for the first comment :)

Comment 2 Erik Hugne 2012-09-07 14:47:23 UTC
Thanks for the prompt feedback.
I have adressed your comments, and have one open question regarding the license.
Is it required to have this as a separate file?
All files in tipcutils have the license prepended to them.

Comment 3 Erik Hugne 2012-09-24 09:07:08 UTC
The srpm/spec links still from the first request still apply:
Spec URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://marvin.hb0da.org/~dev/tipcutils-2.0.3-0.src.rpm

Comment 4 Lokesh Mandvekar 2013-04-13 06:08:13 UTC
Hi Erik,

Well, first off thanks for helping me use TIPC 2.0 with UDP bearers sometime back.

Are you still interested in proceeding with this review request?

If you are (and I'm hoping you would be), I'd like to help with the package review, coz this program is useful to me too. I'm not a sponsor and I'm in process of getting my first package reviewed.


* The Release number needs to be incremented everytime you make a change to the spec file, along with a Changelog entry for it.

* Fedora requires that files not be directly installed to /sbin. /usr/sbin is preferable in this case. Check this out: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout

* In the %files section, use macros for directory names (for eg. %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin)

* Run rpmlint on the spec, srpm and binary rpm files and post their outputs.

* Run the srpm file through koji and provide a link to the build here. Koji HOWTOs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system?rd=Koji/UsingKoji

* The Source URL isn't accessible anymore. Could you please check that out?

There might be other issues (but I'm sorta new to reviewing myself, and will revisit this as and when I learn new stuff).

Comment 5 Lokesh Mandvekar 2013-04-13 06:13:03 UTC
macros to be used in %files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_section

Comment 6 Erik Hugne 2013-04-18 11:35:55 UTC
Since Lokesh kindly offered to take ownership of this, i'm closing this
with reference to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 953379 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.