Spec URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon-2.8-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Many software projects are mirrored worldwide. The mirror sites are required to update the mirror archive regularly (daily, weekly) from a root server. Mirmon helps administrators in keeping an eye on the mirror sites. In a concise graphic format, mirmon shows each site's status history of the last two weeks. It is easy to spot stale or dead mirrors. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
Hi Christopher, First your spec don't built. Well, I see another issue, "%{_httpd_confdir}" is not defined.
Fixed: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon-2.8-2.fc20.src.rpm
> %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/conf.d/%{name}.conf Does't exist mirmon.conf, fix it please. The file name is mirmon-httpd.conf. > install -pDm0644 %{S:1} %{buildroot}%{_httpd_confdir}/%{name}.conf Again, '%{_httpd_confdir}' is not defined.
Sorry for the mistake, I'm busy these days. Will handle next week.
OK. Please recheck: Spec URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon-2.8-2.fc20.src.rpm If you want to take this package, please modify the status and assignee of this bug. Thank you.
Better, but mirmon has not documentation?
(In reply to Yohan Graterol from comment #6) > Better, but mirmon has not documentation? Manpage is enough. CentOS and many projects use it to monitor mirror status...
You are right! Do you can add the license file? The tarball not contain the license.
(In reply to Yohan Graterol from comment #8) > You are right! Do you can add the license file? The tarball not contain the > license. I will request one from the author(email sent), I can't add a ISC license file as License by myself because Fedora doesn't recommend doing this.
Well, meanwhile I can't approve this package. When the package has the license file, will be approved.
This is not a blocker, ISC/BSD software authors don't often include a license file, only GPL series really need a long 35kb text file.
"In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point out this confusion to upstream" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #12) > "In cases where the upstream has chosen a license that requires that a copy > of the license text be distributed along with the binaries and/or source > code, but does not provide a copy of the license text (in the source tree, > or in some rare cases, anywhere), the packager should do their best to point > out this confusion to upstream" > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Yes, but this need time.
But is necessary, Christopher.
New version with LICENSE file. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/mirmon-2.9-1.fc20.src.rpm
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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mirmon- httpd [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 71680 bytes in 6 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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: mirmon-2.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm mirmon-httpd-2.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm mirmon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary probe mirmon-httpd.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mirmon mirmon-httpd mirmon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary probe mirmon-httpd.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mirmon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Long) perl(strict) mirmon-httpd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mirmon-httpd) httpd mirmon Provides -------- mirmon: mirmon mirmon-httpd: config(mirmon-httpd) mirmon-httpd ********** PACKAGE APPROVED **********
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mirmon Short Description: Monitor the status of mirrors Owners: cicku Branches: f18 f19 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
mirmon-2.9-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mirmon-2.9-1.fc19
mirmon-2.9-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mirmon-2.9-1.fc18
mirmon-2.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mirmon-2.9-1.el6
mirmon-2.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mirmon-2.9-1.el5
mirmon-2.9-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
mirmon-2.9-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
mirmon-2.9-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
mirmon-2.9-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
mirmon-2.9-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.