Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/obapps.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/obapps-0.1.7-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: A graphical tool for configuring the per-application settings (window matching) in the Openbox window manager Fedora Account System Username: mariobl
Why you use install and desktop-file-validate commands? Can you use single desktop-file-install instead?
Thanks for the suggestion. Additionally I've added the scriptlets for updating the desktop database. Well, it is not needed for the time being, because we have no MimeType entry in the desktop file, but this could change in the future. Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/obapps.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/obapps-0.1.7-2.fc17.src.rpm
I will review the package.
Small suggetsion. Don't use any macroses in Url. It is uncomfortably when somebody opens such .spec and just want to open a program homepage.
You MUST use python2-devel or python3-devel in BR. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
avoid %install %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling
(In reply to comment #6) > avoid > %install > %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Byte_compiling This rule doesn't say explicitely that I have to replace the current command with "install". It says only I have to make sure that the byte compiled files are available in the package. Try to create a new spec file with "rpmdev-newspec -t python foo" and you will get a foo.spec with exactly that line in %install. (In reply to comment #5) > You MUST use python2-devel or python3-devel in BR. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Fixed. (In reply to comment #4) > Small suggetsion. Don't use any macroses in Url. It is uncomfortably when > somebody opens such .spec and just want to open a program homepage. Actually this is useful for me when I reuse spec files for similar packages. However, fixed. Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/obapps.spec SRPM URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/obapps-0.1.7-3.fc17.src.rpm
Ok. Now your package enough good.
$ rpmlint obapps-0.1.7-3.fc17.noarch.rpm obapps-0.1.7-3.fc17.src.rpm obapps.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-xlib obapps.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary obapps 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. It's OK. Without explicity python-xlib in requires rpm can't find one by itselfs. Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4638902
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/871003-obapps/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (obapps-0.1.7.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
Many thanks for your review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: obapps Short Description: Graphical tool for configuring per-application settings in Openbox Owners: mariobl Branches: f17 f18
Git done (by process-git-requests).
obapps-0.1.7-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/obapps-0.1.7-3.fc18
obapps-0.1.7-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/obapps-0.1.7-3.fc17
obapps-0.1.7-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Packages are marked as stable now.