DOM Tooltip (aka domTT) is a Javascript widget, released under the Apache 2.0 license, which allows developers to add customized tool-tips to their web sites. Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-1/domtt.spec?a=GlnyuPEdRDc SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-1/domtt-0.7.3-1.fc17.src.rpm?a=1e5n1nyvDqk rpmlint domtt-0.7.3-1.fc17.src.rpm domtt.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %build domtt.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint domtt-0.7.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm domtt.x86_64: E: no-binary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-2/domtt.spec?a=NRE0_kqpfSs SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-2/domtt-0.7.3-2.fc17.src.rpm?a=8NoeyePoKEs %changelog * Wed Nov 7 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin[at]gmx.de> - 0.7.3-2 - added js files
you should drop BuildRequires (as there is no build) and also requirement firefox, which basically makes no sense. Also a suggestion: is it useful to provide a httpd-config snippet for e.g. apache httpd? If yes, you must add a dependency to httpd, which is not exactly what you'd require for vdr-live (because that depends on tntnet).
(In reply to comment #2) > you should drop BuildRequires (as there is no build) and also requirement > firefox, which basically makes no sense. > > Also a suggestion: is it useful to provide a httpd-config snippet for e.g. > apache httpd? If yes, you must add a dependency to httpd, which is not > exactly what you'd require for vdr-live (because that depends on tntnet). not totally clear why i should provide a httpd-config file ?
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-3/domtt.spec?a=MuFtihFw6k0 SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-3/domtt-0.7.3-3.fc18.src.rpm?a=Eq0eAy_FzmU %changelog * Thu Nov 8 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin[at]gmx.de> - 0.7.3-3 - Dropped BuildRequires and Requires because there is no build
(In reply to comment #3)> > not totally clear why i should provide a httpd-config file ? Maybe to make this more usable for others? Without that, nobody can use it e.g from their web pages. But: it is just a question/suggestion, not a requirement.
I'll do the review
Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-4/domtt.spec?a=2c8LgU7HXBI SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-live/domtt-0.7.3-4/domtt-0.7.3-4.fc18.src.rpm?a=-FlPPjA2TMo %changelog * Thu Nov 9 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin[at]gmx.de> - 0.7.3-4 - added apache conf file to doc section
Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/domtt.spec SRPM URL http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/domtt-0.7.3-5.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Nov 9 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin[at]gmx.de> - 0.7.3-5 - rebuild
sorry, that this took so long. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames ===== 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. [-]: %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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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) [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: domtt-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm domtt-0.7.3-5.fc19.src.rpm domtt-debuginfo-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm domtt.x86_64: E: no-binary domtt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint domtt domtt-debuginfo domtt.x86_64: E: no-binary domtt-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- domtt-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): domtt-debuginfo-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- domtt-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm: domtt = 0.7.3-5.fc19 domtt(x86-64) = 0.7.3-5.fc19 domtt-debuginfo-0.7.3-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm: domtt-debuginfo = 0.7.3-5.fc19 domtt-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.7.3-5.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.mojavelinux.com/cooker/download/index.php?file=domtooltip/domtt-0.7.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c066f0ecbd4aad3a3398b55fef3e774e1dfc6dd89fef4c6901dff4cf29d84295 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c066f0ecbd4aad3a3398b55fef3e774e1dfc6dd89fef4c6901dff4cf29d84295 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 you definitely should make this noarch: BuildArch: noarch then the useless -debuginfo wouldn't get generated. I see no other issues, should be very easy to fix.
Mathias, thanks for your review. Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/domtt.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/domtt-0.7.3-6.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Nov 14 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin[at]gmx.de> - 0.7.3-6 - added BuildArch noarch $ rpmlint domtt-0.7.3-6.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint domtt-0.7.3-6.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Great, package APPROVED.
Package Name: domtt Short Description: DOM Tooltip (aka domTT) is a Javascript widget Owners: martinkg Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
No SCM request found.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: domtt Short Description: DOM Tooltip (aka domTT) is a Javascript widget Owners: martinkg Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
the package built successfully http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=367482 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=367474
domtt-0.7.3-6.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/domtt-0.7.3-6.fc18
domtt-0.7.3-6.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.