+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #904911 +++ mup is a music notation and printing program with both GUI and CLI interfaces for authoring and printing music notation. rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mup-6.1-1.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm mup.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup.spec --- Additional comment from Greg Bailey on 2013-01-28 15:58:21 EST --- I've made a few changes to the .spec file to move things into proper directories for FHS compliance, and created a .desktop file so that mupmate shows up in the desktop menus. rpmlint SPECS/mup.spec RPMS/x86_64/mup* SRPMS/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm mup.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License mup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License mup.src: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. I put "Arkkra Mup License" because the license, while very similar to one of the BSD variants, doesn't match exactly. SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup.spec --- Additional comment from Greg Bailey on 2013-01-28 18:38:39 EST --- According to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers I get bonus points :-) for posting a link to a successful koji build, so here goes: f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909766 epel6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909777 --- Additional comment from Susi Lehtola on 2013-01-31 09:04:16 EST --- The license http://www.arkkra.com/doc/license.html looks like 2 clause BSD but with the addition 3. Any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation. including the reasons for the changes, and the names of those who made the modifications Blocked FE-LEGAL. ** Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3 might lead one to believe you are the submitter. --- Additional comment from Brendan Jones on 2013-01-31 09:18:41 EST --- Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He is upstream. All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of BSD. Can you guys check to make sure? --- Additional comment from Susi Lehtola on 2013-01-31 09:23:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of > BSD. Can you guys check to make sure? Let's wait for spot. This should be a no-brainer. --- Additional comment from Brendan Jones on 2013-01-31 09:27:34 EST --- Ok cool. Another comment, their license looks FOSS to me, so I am unsure of the FE-LEGAL block. Maybe it could be considered under "Good licenses"
*** Bug 904911 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Sorry this took so long. This license is Free, but GPL-Incompatible. Use: License: Mup Lifting FE-Legal.
I changed the license to "Mup" as requested. SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup-6.1-3.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup.spec koji f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5019233 koji epel 6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5019255
I'm a first time submitter for a new package; I think I followed the requisite steps to adding a new package; am I correct in assuming that I'm at the mercy of finding someone to sponsor me and/or review this package? Thanks!
A few quick things before I review and sponsor: This spec file has a lot of old RPM anachronisms that aren't used anymore in Fedora, specifically: * BuildRoot does not need to be set (it is ignored) * rm -rf %{buildroot} does not need to be run at the beginning of %install (this is done automatically) * There is no need to define a %clean section if you're just putting in rm -rf %{buildroot}, this is the automatic default, just remove the %clean section entirely. * %defattr(-,root,root) is the default, you do not need to state it. Unless you're planning on maintaining mup in EPEL, please remove all these items. I also think it is a lot cleaner for that mupmate.desktop file to be an actual Source1 file, rather than written out from the spec. Just do: Source1: mupmate.desktop then mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/mupmate.desktop Everything else seems okay, fixup those issues and i'll finish off the final review and sponsor you.
(In reply to comment #5) > > Unless you're planning on maintaining mup in EPEL, please remove all these > items. I use Red Hat Enterprise and CentOS distributions pretty extensively, so I'm very keen to support EPEL. > > I also think it is a lot cleaner for that mupmate.desktop file to be an > actual Source1 file, rather than written out from the spec. Makes sense. I've uploaded a new SPEC file and SRPM with that change: SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup-20130324/mup-6.1-4.el5.centos.src.rpm SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup-20130324/mup.spec koji epel-5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5167351 koji epel-6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5167355 koji f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5167359 > > Everything else seems okay, fixup those issues and i'll finish off the final > review and sponsor you. Thank you very much for your time!
Good: - rpmlint checks return nothing - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (Mup) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on f18 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime APPROVED. So, you're now at this step: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored Just tell me what your Fedora Account System (FAS) username is and I'll sponsor you.
(In reply to comment #7) > > Just tell me what your Fedora Account System (FAS) username is and I'll > sponsor you. Hi, my FAS username is "gbailey"; thanks!
You're now sponsored. Go forth and package! If you have questions, feel free to email me.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mup Short Description: a music notation and printing program Owners: gbailey Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
mup-6.1-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mup-6.1-4.el5
mup-6.1-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mup-6.1-4.el6
mup-6.1-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mup-6.1-4.fc17
mup-6.1-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mup-6.1-4.fc18
mup-6.1-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
mup-6.1-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
mup-6.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
mup-6.1-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mup New Branches: f20 Owners: gbailey
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mup Please use --rebase option with fedpkg to rebase the branches.