Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.90-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: msitools is a collection of utilities to inspect and create Windows Installer files. It is useful in a cross-compilation environment such as fedora-mingw. Fedora Account System Username: bonzini This requires libgcab (bug 895757). rpmlint output: libmsi-1.0-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation msitools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl-heat msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msiinfo msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msibuild msitools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Would be nice to add msitools-completion.sh :)
What's the real source URL?
(In reply to comment #2) > What's the real source URL? The last tarball http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/msitools/0.90/msitools-0.90.tar.xz The git: git://git.gnome.org/msitools
You need to follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
Yes, will fix. At the time of submission there was no stable source URL yet, then Marc-André proposed the package to GNOME. Is everything else okay?
Updated spec and SRPM: Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-1.fc18.src.rpm
It is missing libuuid-devel requires. Why do you run autogen?
Fixed both. (I usually do autoreconf or autogen in case some of the patches affect configure.ac)
Hey, any reviewer help would be greatly appriciated! thanks :D
Hello, I planned to do the review yesterday but I was stuck in a meeting all day. I assigned myself the 12th afternoon and now is 14th morning, please wait a sec.. Doing the review now. --Simone
A few issues before building: 1) gcab has renamed the library to libgcab1-devel; so that should be used as BuildRequires. 2) Line 52; please avoid the %make_install macro. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used 3) Change the subpackages names from libmsi-1.0* to something else (like libmsi1*, as MA Lureau did for gcab) as the "." character is not valid with package names. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators 4) Remove the Group tag from line 26 and 35 as they are needed only for EPEL5. 5) Line 37 should be removed, requirements for the correct shared library are added automatically when building. 6) Please sort the BuildRequires.
(In reply to comment #11) > 2) Line 52; please avoid the %make_install macro. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used Well, this is optional, is the %makeinstall macro which is forbidden. If you want to leave it as is, that's fine.
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > 2) Line 52; please avoid the %make_install macro. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used > > Well, this is optional, is the %makeinstall macro which is forbidden. If you > want to leave it as is, that's fine. Not quite: "Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} works." "must NOT be used" => %make_install is only allowed as last resort, if a package does not support "make DESTDIR=... install".
You're(In reply to comment #13) > "Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} works." > > "must NOT be used" => %make_install is only allowed as last resort, if a > package does not support "make DESTDIR=... install". It's the same thing I thought, but if you read carefully you're mixing %makeinstall with %make_install. The former is forbidden, the latter is allowed. The guidelines say: "Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} works." "Instead, Fedora packages should use: %make_install (Note the "_" !), make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install or make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install. Those all do the same thing." In fact I thought also the one with the underscore was forbidden, but apparently not. Regards, --Simone
> 5) Line 37 should be removed, requirements for the correct shared library are > added automatically when building. rpmlint complains if you leave this out (no-version-dependency-on, I think). I changed it to the standard form which is: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
(In reply to comment #15) > rpmlint complains if you leave this out (no-version-dependency-on, I think). > I changed it to the standard form which is: If you remove the lines entirely, rpmbuild packs in the soname with major/minor as requirement and rpmlint does not complain.
Nope, rpmlint complains if you leave it out. The soname is not enough for this check. However, it is not no-version-dependency-on, it is no-dependency-on: libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libmsi1/libmsi1-libs/liblibmsi1 I uploaded a new version. Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-1.fc18.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4973908 rpmlint results: libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmsi -> flimsily libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libmsi1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmsi -> flimsily msitools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msiextract msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl-heat msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msiinfo msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msibuild msitools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
(In reply to comment #17) > Nope, rpmlint complains if you leave it out. The soname is not enough for > this check. However, it is not no-version-dependency-on, it is > no-dependency-on: > > libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libmsi1/libmsi1-libs/liblibmsi1 Doh, that's new for me. Then leave it. > I uploaded a new version. > > Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec > SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-1.fc18.src.rpm The spec file is missing changelog for 0.91-1; and the rpm still points to 0.91-1. 0.91-2 throws a 404 in the same place. I need the links to run fedora-review. The spec file is ok though, so i don't think there's any problem; as the link is available it should pass the review. What you could do just to improve it a little bit is widen the description of the packages to 80 columns and format line 36. Thanks, --Simone
Oops, sorry. http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-2.fc19.src.rpm
Just for fedora-review, or it doesn't work: Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-2.fc19.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [!]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 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) [-]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [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.
msitools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining msitools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mining msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msiextract msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wixl-heat msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msiinfo msitools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary msibuild libmsi1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmsi -> flimsily libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libmsi1/libmsi1-libs/liblibmsi1 libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmsi -> flimsily libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Issues: =========== [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. libmsi1-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libmsi1/libmsi1-libs/liblibmsi1 It's as you posted earlier, but please use: Requires: libmsi1%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Or the dependency it's on the msitools base package. =========== Please widen the description of the packages to 80 columns (comment #18). =========== Add the missing changelog line for 0.91-1. After those, the package is approved.
Hello, any progress?
Spec URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools.spec SRPM URL: http://bonzini.fedorapeople.org/msitools-0.91-3.fc18.src.rpm
Perfect, package approved!
Paolo, would you like some help?
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: msitools Short Description: msitools inspect and create Windows Installer files Owners: pbonzini elmarco Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
WARNING: "pbonzini" is not a valid FAS account. WARNING: Invalid branch f19 requested
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: msitools Short Description: msitools inspect and create Windows Installer files Owners: bonzini elmarco Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
msitools-0.91-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/msitools-0.91-3.fc18
msitools-0.91-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
msitools-0.91-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.