Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake-0-0.1.20130325git.fc20.src.rpm Description: Remake is a build system with features of both make and redo. See the documentation for details on usage and control file syntax. Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Updated to version 0.4. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake-0.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
Any reason to not buildrequires doxygen and generate doc, maybe a better option than making README.md %doc? By just running doxygen in the topdir, ignoring the latex subdir: $ find BUILD/remake-f38cbaa074e87bd2d278624c53dcd3148b4f5b03/doxydoc/html/ | wc -l 242 $ du -sh BUILD/remake-f38cbaa074e87bd2d278624c53dcd3148b4f5b03/doxydoc/html/ 2.1M BUILD/remake-f38cbaa074e87bd2d278624c53dcd3148b4f5b03/doxydoc/html/ and loading file:///home/pcpa/rpmbuild/BUILD/remake-f38cbaa074e87bd2d278624c53dcd3148b4f5b03/doxydoc/html/index.html in firefox, it looks like to be desirable to have a -doc subpackage. Is there any prevision of an official release? I see only "\section sec-licensing Licensing" in remake.cpp with version information. Is this correct? --- Full fedora-review text follows --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pcpa/927477-remake/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: remake-0.4-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm remake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remake 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint remake remake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remake 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- remake (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- remake: remake remake(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/silene/remake/archive/f38cbaa074e87bd2d278624c53dcd3148b4f5b03/remake-0.4-f38cbaa.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cebb18e16882107e101bde85a4fb198f217f913454dacce392fe3b205275bdf0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cebb18e16882107e101bde85a4fb198f217f913454dacce392fe3b205275bdf0 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 927477
(In reply to comment #2) > Any reason to not buildrequires doxygen and generate doc, > maybe a better option than making README.md %doc? I thought the documentation appeared more useful to a remake developer than to an end user, but there is no harm in including it. I will make that change. > Is there any prevision of an official release? I see only > "\section sec-licensing Licensing" in remake.cpp with version > information. Is this correct? Yes, and you can also see them by navigating to the project home page and pressing the "Tags" button, or looking directly at this URL: https://github.com/silene/remake/tags Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake-0.4-2.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Any reason to not buildrequires doxygen and generate doc, > > maybe a better option than making README.md %doc? > > I thought the documentation appeared more useful to a remake developer than > to an end user, but there is no harm in including it. I will make that I understand. The main page is actually small and gives a good looking formatted output of the same contents of README.md, but the full doxygen comes with a lot of extra stuff only useful for remake developers. > change. You should install README.md in the main package, and the doxygen output in a -doc subpackage. I suggest something like: cp -a doxydoc/html %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} in %install to avoid yet another %_docdir directory. Otherwise, now there is 88K binary and 2.1M doc in the main package. If you prefer changing back to not generating any doxygen documentation I am fine with it. I leave it for you to choose. > > Is there any prevision of an official release? I see only > > "\section sec-licensing Licensing" in remake.cpp with version > > information. Is this correct? > > Yes, and you can also see them by navigating to the project home page and > pressing the "Tags" button, or looking directly at this URL: > > https://github.com/silene/remake/tags Ok. Good enough :-) > Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake.spec > SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake-0.4-2.fc20.src.rpm
Now that I've had a closer look at that tags page, I realize I can get tarballs from there, instead of needing to know a git commit hash. I've made that change, and split the documentation out into a separate package. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/remake/remake-0.4-3.fc20.src.rpm
I do not see any remaining issues. The package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: remake Short Description: Build system that bridges the gap between make and redo Owners: jjames Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
remake-0.4-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/remake-0.4-3.fc19
remake-0.4-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/remake-0.4-3.fc18
remake-0.4-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
remake-0.4-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
remake-0.4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.