Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject.spec SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject-0.4.4-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: make project skeletons (http://code.google.com/p/makeproject) Fedora Account System Username: juanmabc
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT This is obsolete unless you want to provide a package for EPEL5. According to the changelog, I assume you don't want to do so. Please remove this last artifact. %{_infodir}/%{name}.info.gz %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz Indeed, currently we ship gzipped info and man pages. But this could change in the future, and you don't have any influence to that behavior because the compression is done by rpm automatically. Better use: %{_infodir}/%{name}.info.* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
* Mon Dec 31 2012 Juan Manuel Borges Caño <juanmabcmail> - 0.4.6-1 - Use more generic man and info %files. - Remove obsolete "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". - Fedora review request (bug 890733). Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject.spec SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject-0.4.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Bumps tarball version cause the spec is inside it too, to maintain hash (0.4.6 will not bump since it is not final until approved). Thanks for the explained tips.
Scratch build for Rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4833622 $ rpmlint -i -v * mkproject.src: I: checking mkproject.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/makeproject (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.src:63: W: macro-in-%changelog %files Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. mkproject.src: I: checking-url http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. mkproject.noarch: I: checking mkproject.noarch: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/makeproject (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.spec:63: W: macro-in-%changelog %files Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. mkproject.spec: I: checking-url http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. --- The download URL is valid, the tarball is downloadable. That's a common problem with Googlecode stuff. The issue about the macro in a comment is rather cosmetic, but you should escape it with an extra "%" to make rpmlint happy again. mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} The command to move the doc files is superfluous. Just write (in %files): %doc AUTHORS COPYING Changelog NEWS README The %doc macro creates the appropriate folder and copies the files, that's all. [mariobl@localhost src]$ licensecheck -r * cmd.sh: GPL (v3 or later) mkproject.in.sh: GPL (v3 or later) mps.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/c-lib.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/bash.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/perl.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/c.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/c++-lib.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/c++.sh: GPL (v3 or later) skeletons/python.sh: GPL (v3 or later) Well, all source files seem to be GPLv3+ licensed. But I see also a TeXinfo version of the GFDL (fdl.texi) in the doc folder. Is there anything GFDL licensed? $ rpm -qpR *noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/bin/env autoconf bash coreutils info info rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 sed util-linux rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 As far as I can see, you can safely drop "bash" from the runtime requirements. It is automatically detected by rpm. I assume that /bin/sh match the needs of "bash".
* %doc AUTHORS COPYING Changelog NEWS README This is usually ok for packages that do not install itself its documentation on "make install", then you can *extra* install it for the distro docs. In this case, "make install" does install into %{_docdir}/name as per autotools default. Then, the mv just adapts to fedora package doc scheme. As a more elegant solution, we can do: %build %configure --docdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} then no mv needed. For the record, that %doc usual solution on other (undoc install) packages messes with that scheme: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/sonyvaio/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/mkproject-0.4.6-1.fc17.i386 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/mkproject/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/mkproject/COPYING /usr/share/doc/mkproject/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/mkproject/NEWS /usr/share/doc/mkproject/README But even without messing, they are usually installed (i mean with "make install", so even if it could work i'm more inclined to do it like that, or other similar option that does not imply a %doc macro. (The %configure one seems the cleaner) * Is there anything GFDL licensed? GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License. It is used for the info documentation file, it just has less requirements allowing faster distribution and fixes (typos). Yes, all source files are GPLv3+. * I assume that /bin/sh match the needs of "bash". I'm not so confident with that. The package needs very specifically bash features not present in sh, i don't see "bash" hurting because of that, even being the only sh provider, taking into account other sh providers (ksh, csh, ...) in fedora, now or future. I'm explicitly told to not assume pretty much anything about the system the user is running. * changelog macros ok, fixing. * Mon Jan 02 2013 Juan Manuel Borges Caño <juanmabcmail> - 0.4.6-2 - Improve doc install. - Fix changelog macros. Spec URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject.spec SRPM URL: http://juanmabc.fedorapeople.org/packages/mkproject/mkproject-0.4.6-2.fc17.src.rpm
New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4841425 $ rpmlint -i -v * mkproject.src: I: checking mkproject.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/makeproject (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.src: I: checking-url http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. mkproject.noarch: I: checking mkproject.noarch: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/makeproject (timeout 10 seconds) (none): E: no installed packages by name mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 mkproject.spec: I: checking-url http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) mkproject.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://makeproject.googlecode.com/files/mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Nothing of interest, as already discussed. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv3+ [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * a8bb7d25afdc419e55d4ed8b4e93b16f323846f21b415c8fe374fe1625b4020d mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2 a8bb7d25afdc419e55d4ed8b4e93b16f323846f21b415c8fe374fe1625b4020d mkproject-0.4.6.tar.bz2.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [.] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ---------------- BTW, I'm not happy with changing already released tarballs. Moreover, there's actually no reason to ship the current spec file inside the tarball. The Fedora package is present anyway, and for other rpm based distributions it's almost senseless due to rpm incompatibilities and different macros and names of required packages. Well, if you decide to keep the spec file up-to-date to give other packagers a framework, please provide it somewhere else and leave the released tarball untouched.
Noted i will rework the "spec inside tarball" scheme in the near immediate releases.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mkproject Short Description: Make project skeletons Owners: juanmabc Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc16
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc17
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc18
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
mkproject-0.4.6-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.