Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.src.rpm Description: Fossil is a simple, high-reliability, distributed software configuration management with distributed bug tracking, distributed wiki and built-in web interface.
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5327132
*** Bug 521730 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Deleting src/sqlite3.* indicates, it seems to still use these files, as the build fails. It'd be better to delete them in the prep section. You're shipping a BSD license file but the spec file claims GPLv2.
I have fixed the license tag in the spec file, BSD was correct indeed. Regarding sqlite: I deleted sqlite3.c, as using the sqlite3.h file is of no harm, as it still links against the system version. New URLs: Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.src.rpm
You must also remove the bundled sqlite3.h because it might differ from the one provided by sqlite-devel. If Fedora's sqlite package was built with a different header, this could lead to undefined behavior, e.g. in case of constant redefinitions, changed parameter orders etc. Always keep the headers in sync with the corresponding library.
Okay, I have added a rm src/sqlite.*, and have added a patch so that it does not attempt to build it anymore (as the code didn't use it, but the makefile did try to build it anyway). New URLs: Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.src.rpm
Only one issue blocking approval. Two other notes follow. Issues: ======= "Must" items, needing work. - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions "Should" items, needing work. These do not have to be fixed, but would be nice - Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define snapshot 20130216000435 - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Can you just add a comment before the patch line explaining why. ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fossil-doc [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: "Public domain", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/threebean/959118-fossil/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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]: 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 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: [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define snapshot 20130216000435 [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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. ===== 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: fossil-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.x86_64.rpm fossil-doc-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.x86_64.rpm fossil.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/fossil 0775L fossil.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fossil 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint fossil-doc fossil fossil.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/fossil 0775L fossil.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fossil 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- fossil-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fossil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fossil-doc: fossil-doc fossil-doc(x86-64) fossil: fossil fossil(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.fossil-scm.org/download/fossil-src-20130216000435.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6fc0068a9174fc24ec9323cf7fddd771320248d9befc4a417746839a442c8de1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6fc0068a9174fc24ec9323cf7fddd771320248d9befc4a417746839a442c8de1 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 959118
All three items should be fixed now. Same URLs: Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil-1.25-1.20130216000435.fc18.src.rpm
Hm, I think the executable still has non-standard perms unless I'm mistaken. It is currently 775 and it should be 755. Also, when updating your package under review, can you bump the release and add a changelog note each time you re-upload? It is often helpful to the reviewer to be able to see exactly what changed if they're confused.
File permissions should be fixed now (local rpmlint confirms as much). New URLs: Spec URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil.spec SRPM URL: http://puiterwijk.fedorapeople.org//fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc18.src.rpm
Package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: fossil Short Description: A distributed SCM with bug tracking and wiki Owners: puiterwijk Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc19
fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc18
fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
fossil-1.25-2.20130216000435.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Would you like to maintain EPEL7 branch?
Yes. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: fossil New Branches: epel7 Owners: puiterwijk InitialCC: