Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/sendxmpp.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/sendxmpp-1.23-1.src.rpm Description: Sendxmpp is a Perl script to send XMPP (Jabber) messages from the command line, similar to what mail(1) does for mail. Messages can be sent both to individual recipients and chat rooms. This package will be imported to EPEL 5 and 6 and of course to all active Fedora branches.
Please note that this is a re-review as the existing package was orphaned.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [!]: 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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [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. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sendxmpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sendxmpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Authen::SASL) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Net::XMPP) perl(open) perl(strict) Provides -------- sendxmpp: sendxmpp MD5-sum check (done by hand) ---------------------------- http://sendxmpp.platon.sk/sendxmpp-1.23.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8a8b408ebd1df0157418981035748d9eb2464d353c5ea8ac48b074b8a85b9616 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a8b408ebd1df0157418981035748d9eb2464d353c5ea8ac48b074b8a85b9616 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Issues ------ - Typo in %changelog: '- Upgrade to 1.12' -> '- Upgrade to 1.23' (not really relevant ;-) ) - %defattr, %clean section, and cleaning in the %install section for EPEL 5 are missing. Please fix the issues before the scm import. Beside that I see no blocker, package APPROVED.
Thank you very much for the package review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sendxmpp Short Description: A Perl script to send XMPP messages Owners: robert Branches: el5 el6 f17 f18 f19 InitialCC:
Just my two cents: - As far as I know, not even el5 requires %defattr, so that's okay - There's no need to BR perl(Net::XMPP) and perl(Getopt::Long) in this package
Unretired, take ownership and submit package change request for EL branches.
Jon, thank you - also for the pointer. And here we go: Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: sendxmpp New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: robert InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc19
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc18
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc17
sendxmpp-1.23-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendxmpp-1.23-1.el6
sendxmpp-1.23-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendxmpp-1.23-1.el5
sendxmpp-1.23-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
sendxmpp-1.23-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
sendxmpp-1.23-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
sendxmpp-1.23-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.