Spec URL: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan.spec SRPM URL: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan-1.6-0.fc18.src.rpm Description: CMap (Character Map) resources are used to unidirectionally map character codes, such as a Unicode encoding form, to CIDs (Characters IDs, meaning glyphs) of a CIDFont resource. This package contains the Japanese cmap resources. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 -- The only real question I have left is where the package should be installed- should it be under a cmap subdirectory in /usr/share (as it is at the moment)? If yes, which package (there will be several cmap-blah packages) should own it? Can multiple packages own a directory, so it gets removed if they're all gone but exists as long as some remain on the system? Or should cmap-japan-1.6 (%{name}-%{version}) just be in /usr/share?
It is OK for /usr/share/cmap to be multiply owned in this case. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Or I guess it wouldn't hurt anything if the cmap-japan-1.6 directory moved one level up, though the current setup arguably looks cleaner. The only real consideration there, I think, is whether one is easier for the packages which will consume these files. Since I promised, I'll go ahead and take this ticket for review. I can't see anything other than the /usr/share/cmap ownership issue which would be a problem, though.
Alright, then I've fixed that issue- cmap-japan now owns /usr/share/cmap, and the other packages will as well. Spec URL: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan.spec SRPM URL: http://venus.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan-1.6-1.fc18.src.rpm
Awesome, thanks. I will be away for a long weekend but I'll try to carve out some time this evening to give this a full review.
Ping?
According to the other bugs, Ben is not yet sponsored. Btw. Ping Tibbs, you intended to review this one.
Ben is sponsored now, removing FE_NEEDSPONSOR blocker.
These are now the correct spec/srpm links (sorry about that!): Spec URL: http://mars.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan.spec SRPM URL: http://mars.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan-1.6-1.fc18.src.rpm
Stealing this from Jason since he does not respond. 0.) The package naming and versioning As you pointed out, the number in the file name is not a version. The package should be named cmap-japan1-6; the question what to take for the version remains open (as only the mappings themselves seem to be versioned separately). I suggest you either contact upstream and ask for their advice on packaging/versioning, or use the modification date, such as 20120814 or 2012.08.14 for version. 1.) I'm not sure you need to include the two documentation files Licensing information is embedded in the files themselves and these two files seem to change upstream; we'd need to figure out how to package them then. 2.) This is unnecessary: mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/cmap/%{name}-%{version} 3.) These belong in %prep (unless you decide to drop them as I suggested): mkdir _tmpdoc install -p -m0644 %SOURCE1 %SOURCE2 _tmpdoc Also, "rm -rf _tmpdoc" is unnecessary.
I have gotten rid of all the documentation, as suggested. I've changed the version to 2012.08.14; that seems reasonable enough. I also changed the package name to cmap-japan1-6. Should I retroactively update the changelog to use the right versioning? I did, but I'm not completely confident it was the right thing to do. Spec URL: http://mars.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan1-6.spec SRPM URL: http://mars.arosser.com/fedora/cmap/cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #9) > I have gotten rid of all the documentation, as suggested. > > I've changed the version to 2012.08.14; that seems reasonable enough. I also > changed the package name to cmap-japan1-6. Thank you. > Should I retroactively update the changelog to use the right versioning? I > did, but I'm not completely confident it was the right thing to do. I don't really have a strong opinion on this and I don't believe it matters as the package was not really released. Do whatever seems fine to you. I'm finishing the review now: * Package is properly named * The version is correct * The license tag is correct * License good for Fedora * Full license text included (in each of the files) * SPEC file clean and legible * Filelist sane * Requires/provides make sense * Package owns all directories it should * Builds fine in mock * Rpmlint reasonably happy The package is APPROVED now. Please go ahead and file a SCM request: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cmap-japan1-6 Short Description: The Japanese character resource mappings from the Adobe cmap project. Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cmap.adobe/ Owners: tc01 Branches: f19 f20 f21 InitialCC:
WARNING: Requested package name cmap-japan1-6 doesn't match bug summary cmap-japan
Oops, I guess that happens when the package name changes during the review. Can we try that again? New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cmap-japan1-6 Short Description: The Japanese character resource mappings from the Adobe cmap project. Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cmap.adobe/ Owners: tc01 Branches: f19 f20 f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc20
cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc19
cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
cmap-japan1-6-2012.08.14-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.