[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ | Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #23 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Package Change Request == Package Name: wcd New Branches: f17 Owners: waterlan InitialCC: mrunge twaugh Make wcd available in the current f17 branch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-02 14:31:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675
--- Comment #22 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl ---
The past weeks I have worked on a new version of wcd. I released it on Monday
Oct 29. I added support for a $(sysconfdir) variable in the Makefile. So now
the installation uses %{_syscondir} from the spec file.
New spec file and source rpm:
Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec
SRPM URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd-5.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm
Now I continue with the packaging for Fedora.
best regards,
Erwin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: wcd Short Description: Chdir for DOS and Unix Owners: waterlan Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC: mrunge twaugh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675
Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: %config /etc/profile.d/wcd.*
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: %config /etc/profile.d/wcd.*
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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:
GPL, GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mrunge/review/859675-wcd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #17 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi, Before I started working on the wcd.spec file I had a well running Fedora 14. I upgraded to 17, and that became a nightmare. The cause was bad Nvidia and vesa drivers, which gave me black screens after a few minutes. After a few evenings with a lot of frustration I managed to do a fresh installation (my data was lost in the process) with drivers from nvidia.com. In Fedora 17 both Gnome and KDE cannot handle by two monitors properly, but Okay so be it. I have to reconfigure my display settings every time. Now suddenly my Fedora 17 doesn't boot any more. It freezes after Starting manage, Install and Generate Color Profiles... So I cannot work on this any further. I think I wait until Fedora 18 has been released and try again after. best regards, Erwin Waterlander -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #18 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi, I have put a new spec file here: Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec I cannot test it, because my Fedora 17 booting hangs at random points. regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #15 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Erwin, may I hint you, to take a closer look to the following page? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- I'll do the official review, and will take care of sponsoring Erwin, when it's done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #14 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi Matthias, Thank you very much! best regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #11 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Erwin, No, there are some things to fix %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Change this %config /etc/profile.d/wcd.* to %config(noreplace) /etc/profile.d/wcd.* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files and no-manual-page-for-binary wcd.exe I dont know the reason for not recognized the man-pages, Try with your idea (rename the man-pages) I wish you the best of luck in search of sponsor Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #12 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- New files Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec SRPM URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd-5.2.2-5.fc17.src.rpm Hi Eduardo, Thanks again. The old configs need to be overwritten. I have added a comment to explain. Also for the man page wcd is an exception. I have added a comment for that too. The manual gets the name of the package and the name of the defined alias/function. The name of the binary can vary and actually doesn't matter much. Wcd is different than all other packages in the sense that it must be executed via a shell alias/function. The reason behind this is that wcd has to execute a 'cd' command and the 'cd' command is a shell built-in function. Therefore a trick has to be done to execute a cd command. The binary creates a shell script. And the generated shell script is sourced in the current shell via an alias/function. best regards, Erwin Waterlander -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #10 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Eduardo, thanks for all your help. Is the spec file now good to go? I assume the next step is finding a sponsor. regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #8 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi, New files Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec SRPM URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd-5.2.2-4.fc17.src.rpm * Mon Sep 24 2012 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl - 5.2.2-4 - Summary starts with capital letter C. - Config files marked with config. - Removed clean section (needed only if supporting EPEL5). - Moved man-pages under doc. [root@localhost wcd]# rpmlint -v wcd.spec wcd.spec: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/wcd-5.2.2-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@localhost wcd]# rpmlint -v wcd.spec wcd-5.2.2-4.fc17.src.rpm wcd.spec: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/wcd-5.2.2-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) wcd.src: I: checking wcd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Chdir - Chair, Choir wcd.src: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/ (timeout 10 seconds) wcd.src: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/wcd-5.2.2-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #9 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi, About this warning: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wcd.exe. The manual name is 'wcd'. The binary name is 'wcd.exe' to make the distinction with the required alias or function named 'wcd'. Wcd can only function when it is called via an alias or function. Many people in the past have tried to run the binary directly, but this does not work. The alias (for csh) and the function (for bash) are defined in the config files. If you want I can change the .exe suffix into something else (some people are allergic to anything that reminds them of DOS). Eg Debian uses .exec. On Debian the binary is installed under /usr/libexec/, because the packager says you don't execute the binary directly. This is debatable. /usr/libexec is for programs called by programs/scripts, and I don't call an alias a program. best regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675
Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||echevemas...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi Erwin
I'm not sponsor
This is a informal review
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[ ]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[ ]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: sed
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
Note: Found : Packager: Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL, GPL (v2 or later) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/makerpm/859675-wcd/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[ ]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
[ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Every time you make a version of the spec, paste the output of rpmlint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #3 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi, thanks. I have uploaded a new spec and rpm file (same location). %changelog * Sun Sep 23 2012 Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl - 5.2.2 - Removed tag Packager. - Removed Buildrequires sed. - Changed License tag from GPL to GPLv2 [root@localhost wcd]# rpmlint -v wcd.spec wcd.spec: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/wcd-5.2.2-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@localhost wcd]# rpmlint -v wcd-5.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm wcd.src: I: checking wcd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chdir - chair, choir wcd.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C chdir for DOS and Unix wcd.src: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/ (timeout 10 seconds) wcd.src: I: checking-url http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/wcd-5.2.2-src.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. best regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com ---
Hi Erwin
Fix this
Increment Release Release: 1%{?dist} to Release: 2%{?dist}
In the section Changelog increment the number release whenever you make a
change
Example 5.2.2-2,
In SRPMS
[!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5
wcd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/wcd.csh
wcd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/wcd.sh
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ParagNemade/CommonRpmlintErrors#non-conffile-in-etc
add %config in %files
==
wcd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wcd.exe
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages
easy job because you are the developer
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi again Erwin, The debuginfo package contains c3po you'll have to pack http://sourceforge.net/projects/c3po/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #6 from Erwin Waterlander water...@xs4all.nl --- Hi Eduardo, New files Spec URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd.spec SRPM URL: http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/fedora/wcd-5.2.2-3.fc17.src.rpm Increased release number. I don't understand why there is a warning that there is no %clean section, because there is a %clean section in the spec file present. Wcd does not depend on any c3po libraries. Wcd includes source code that has been generated with c3po. regards, Erwin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 859675] Review Request: wcd - chdir for DOS and Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859675 --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemas...@gmail.com --- Hi Erwin Remove %clean this = rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT this is needed only if supporting EPEL5 and this warning wcd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/wcd.csh wcd.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/wcd.sh https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ParagNemade/CommonRpmlintErrors#non-conffile-in-etc and the man-pages is needed Best Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
