Spec URL: multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas.spec SRPM URL: multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas-1.0.0a-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: LibreAtlas is an open source Geography Education application built on top of SpatiaLite and RasterLite. It uses LibreAtlas databases which are a digital alternative to a paper atlas. Fedora Account System Username: ndroftheline
Spec URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas.spec SRPM URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas-1.0.0a-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: LibreAtlas is an open source Geography Education application built on top of SpatiaLite and RasterLite. It uses LibreAtlas databases which are a digital alternative to a paper atlas. Fedora Account System Username: ndroftheline EDIT: added http:// for the URLS so they are actually links (:
Naming: OK Licensing: OK (GPLv3+) RPM installs and works. Rawhide koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5250647 F18: koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5250654 $ rpmlint libreatlas-1.0.0a-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libreatlas.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libreatlas-1.0.0a/README libreatlas.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary LibreAtlas 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint libreatlas-1.0.0a-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint libreatlas.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Under the %install section please change "%make_install" to: make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} Were you planning to package this for EPEL?
Spec URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas.spec SRPM URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas-1.0.0a-2.fc18.src.rpm I had not intended to package this for EPEL. I went with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT for consistency in the spec file. rpmlint is now clean except for missing manpage. Thank you for your review! Upstream replied to my bug reports and feature request with exciting news about the future of libreatlas, which will undergo a significant update soon along with the new version of spatialite and rasterlite. He is happy libreatlas is being considered for inclusion in Fedora.
Also, I am just curious and would like to learn: why is it better to use the 'make install' command instead of the %make_install macro? Is it always better to avoid the %make_install macro?
(In reply to comment #5) > Also, I am just curious and would like to learn: why is it better to use the > 'make install' command instead of the %make_install macro? Is it always > better to avoid the %make_install macro? It is deprecated. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2010-August/007317.html Also so is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs %{buildroot} Regardless I will give this package conditional approval after some furthr checks and getting you a sponsor. APPROVED
Micah, Before you get sponsored can you please review the following: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group?rd=PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored We can discuss on IRC about you doing some informal reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952632 I started this informal review. I am looking for other "low hanging fruit" to look at, I am very happy to hear your suggestions, here or on IRC or email or whatever. wrt $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS) seems to indicate that is is exactly the same - should we ask the FPC to update the guidelines to indicate that $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is deprecated? wrt $make_install, (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) indicates that $makeinstall should NOT be used but that $make_install is the exact same as "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install". Again, should we ask the FPC to update the guidelines? Thank you, ~Micah
per comment #8, let me clarify some things: $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not deprecated. The only requirement is that one be consistent and not mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %buildroot , per the referenced guideline text : "There is very little value in choosing one style over the other, since they will resolve to the same values in all scenarios. You should pick a style and use it consistently throughout your packaging." %make_install is ok. The aforementioned guideline explicitly says: "... Instead, Fedora packages should use: %make_install (Note the "_" !), make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install or make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install. Those all do the same thing." Does that help? that said, I'll try to review this review :), and if all goes well, sponsor you.
Since this is (one of) your first reviews, let me also offer some small comments and advice: 1. since Version contains a non-numeric component, consider looking over: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease But, as long as care is taken that subsequent package versions are always considered newer (according to rpm), then all is well. 2. Please document need/purpose of this in %prep: sed -i '1d' gnome_resource/LibreAtlas.desktop That said, I've now sponsored you. Welcome to fedora!
Thanks Rex! Micah, Set the fedora-cvs flag to ? and follow the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests If you would like me to be a co-maintainer add my FAS id (vicodan) after yours in the owners field. You can leave the initialCC field blank.
> 1. since Version contains a non-numeric component, consider looking over: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease > > But, as long as care is taken that subsequent package versions are always > considered newer (according to rpm), then all is well. > volter helped me understand RPM's version hierarchy logic and we checked with upstream on what their release progression is going to be, and I believe we have everything under control. > 2. Please document need/purpose of this in %prep: > sed -i '1d' gnome_resource/LibreAtlas.desktop > Done. Spec URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas.spec SRPM URL: http://multiseatlibrary.distract.org/files/libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc18.src.rpm > > That said, I've now sponsored you. Welcome to fedora! Thank you Rex for your sponsorship. I am very happy to be part of the team. Dan: I must be missing the "owners" field. Is that on this bugzilla page?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#New_Packages
Oh. Figured that out by looking at the link you gave me. Duh. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libreatlas Short Description: Map and Geography Education tool Owners: ndroftheline, vicodan Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc18
libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc19
Please let bodhi close the review automatically.
libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
libreatlas-1.0.0a-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.