Spec URL: http://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/tweak/tweak.spec SRPM URL: http://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/tweak/tweak-3.01-1.el5.centos.src.rpm Description: Tweak is a hex editor. It allows you to edit a file at very low level, letting you see the full and exact binary contents of the file. It can be useful for modifying binary files such as executables, editing disk or CD images, debugging programs that generate binary file formats incorrectly, and many other things. Fedora Account System Username: gbailey $ rpmlint tweak.spec /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/result/tweak-3.01-1.el6.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. el5 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5177734 el6 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5177738 f20 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5177720
I should have mentioned in the original request that I'd like to provide EPEL builds, and that's why I have steps in the RPM .spec file that aren't necessary for later Fedora builds (%clean, etc.)
Hello, I attach my informal review. It looks good to me, although maybe Source should be Source0 (as used in the Source URL guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL) rpmlint output ============== $ rpmlint tweak-3.01-1.el5.centos.src.rpm tweak.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. MUST ==== [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] Package does not use a name that already exist. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [OK] Changelog in prescribed format. [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified. [--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [--] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] 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. [OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [--] Development files must be in a -devel package. [--] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] 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. [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [--] 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. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] No external kernel modules [OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [OK] No need for external bits [OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [OK] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] Package installs properly. SHOULD ====== [--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment [OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [OK] No PreReq [OK] %makeinstall is not used [OK] Timestamp is preserved [OK] Parallel make [--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [--] 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. [--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg [OK] The package builds in mock. [OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] The package functions as described. [--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [OK] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts [--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
(In reply to comment #2) > Hello, > > I attach my informal review. Thank you! > It looks good to me, although maybe Source > should be Source0 (as used in the Source URL guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL) Agreed. I've changed the spec file to use "Source0". Spec URL: http://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/tweak/tweak.spec SRPM URL: http://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/tweak/tweak-3.01-2.el5.centos.src.rpm el6 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5259198 f20 koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5259236
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/tweak/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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: 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: [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: tweak-3.01-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm tweak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tweak tweak.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- tweak (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tweak: tweak tweak(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/tweak/tweak-3.01.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 196e629705969d0f44fdd1436a31c213478bc3ee8ba63e986b56105353c8fd94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 196e629705969d0f44fdd1436a31c213478bc3ee8ba63e986b56105353c8fd94 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n tweak-3.01-2.el5.centos.src.rpm
Looks great. Package approved! You might consider using the 1st style of buildroot tag listed in the guidelines (which apparently has preference), but it really doesn't matter: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tweak Short Description: an efficient hex editor Owners: gbailey Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
tweak-3.01-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweak-3.01-2.el5
tweak-3.01-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweak-3.01-2.el6
tweak-3.01-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweak-3.01-2.fc19
tweak-3.01-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweak-3.01-2.fc18
tweak-3.01-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tweak-3.01-2.fc17
tweak-3.01-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
tweak-3.01-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
tweak-3.01-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
tweak-3.01-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
tweak-3.01-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.