Spec URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit-2.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: freecode-submit is a script that supports remote submission of release updates to Freecode via its JSON API. It is intended for use in project release scripts. It reads the metadata from an RFC-2822-like message on standard input, possibly with overrides by command-line switches. It supersedes freshmeat-submit, which no longer works following the site name change. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
There is no need for Requires: Python in spec-file: rpm -qpR 963265-freecode-submit/results/freecode-submit-2.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python <-- auto-gen by rpmbuild python <-- from spec-file rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 You can skip the `make all` target in spec, just invoking `xmlto html-nochunks %{name}.xml` is enough: Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.7UNe2z + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd freecode-submit-2.5 + make <-- does nothing make: Nothing to be done for `all'. + make freecode-submit.html xmlto html-nochunks freecode-submit.xml + exit 0 Rpmlint ------- Checking: freecode-submit-2.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -> fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint freecode-submit freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -> fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint --> ignored Please fix, I'll take another try then.
just forgot: License: BSD --> shoud be --> License: BSD with advertising
(In reply to comment #1) > There is no need for Requires: Python in spec-file: Fixed. > You can skip the `make all` target in spec, just invoking `xmlto > html-nochunks %{name}.xml` is enough: Fixed.(Oh...damn..) For the licensing problem, please wait, I'll ask FE-LEGAL. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc20.src.rpm
There's no licensing problem. Actually `BSD with advertising` is a "good" license: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses It was just about which type of BSD-license is really used. Will review again, then...
Here we go: Package Review ============== Legend: [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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. -----> BSD --> BSD with advertising | fix this in SCM, then!!!!! Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 5 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]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make. // only one file is processed during build, parallel make has no benefit. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc20.noarch.rpm freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsi -----> fix this in SCM, then!!!!! freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -> fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment // ignored 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint freecode-submit freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal -----> fix this in SCM, then!!!!! freecode-submit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freshmeat -> fresh meat, fresh-meat, refreshment // ignored 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- freecode-submit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python Provides -------- freecode-submit: freecode-submit Source checksums ---------------- http://www.catb.org/~esr/freecode-submit/freecode-submit-2.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73fa73c92ad165de5d6f02ff7ca16ae2c064827b2fcc8cba8272196415dcc8f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73fa73c92ad165de5d6f02ff7ca16ae2c064827b2fcc8cba8272196415dcc8f0 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 963265 -- Please change the following in spec-files on SCM-import: "s/BSD/& with advertising" "s/metadata/meta-data/" And so: APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: freecode-submit Short Description: A tool help submit release information to freecode.com Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Re: comment 4 > License: BSD with advertising That's also relevant with regard to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_does_it_mean_when_a_license_is_listed_as_.22GPLv2_compat.22_or_.22GPLv3_compatible.22.3F
Git done (by process-git-requests).
freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc19
freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc18
freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
freecode-submit-2.5-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.