Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tjftebt2ccn1d95/xs-release.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8yh8mdrx4zai5po/xs-release-6-1.src.rpm Description: Hi, I have created this package as a part om final project for my Software Build and Release course. I would appreciate a review on this package. This package contains the XS repository configuration. This package is used in OLPC and I have edited it so that it can be used on x86_64 & ARM architectures. Fedora Account System Username: kparmar4
mmm... I already see some errors among first lines (release, source*, build section above all). Maybe you should review packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Antonio, would you please be so kind as to outline the errors instead of making a very vague statement?
(In reply to comment #2) > Antonio, would you please be so kind as to outline the errors instead of > making a very vague statement? Sure. :) I mistaken to define them "errors". This package should provide a repository configuration for yum, so it should be named xs-release, ok (I don't know if there are specific instructions in these cases). Release should be 1%{?dist} (first on Fedora) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag Source* should be an URL or at least say where come from. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL 'Build' section ... Probably there is nothing to build but maybe he should write something to restate it. :) 'changelog' is outdated.
Hi Antonio, Thank you for pointing out that. I would gladly edit the spec file to correct the mistakes and resubmit it for review again. I should point that I got this file from OLPC webpage provided to me by my instructors. This package cotains on repository configurations, which used by OLPC.
Note that repository configuration for non-Fedora repositories isn't allowed in Fedora itself. The package certainly can be reviewed for adherence to other Fedora guidelines, and packaging correctness, but it can't be added to Fedora.
After discussing with reporter on irc, I close this one, do a review of the 2nd one so he see what it look like, but the package will not be approved per comment #5
Second one being #879568