[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3
[Bug 3] Tracker: Packages under review.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |UPSTREAM

--- Comment #46 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
imported in fedora

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #45 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2013-04-03 21:02:55 
CEST ---
Hm... tchol.org seems to be down. Any chance to make links available, by fixing
tchol.org or use some different host?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #44 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2013-01-02 
07:05:46 CET ---
Sorry, this slipped under my radar for awhile.

I have asked Fedora Legal for confirmation whether or not this package is
acceptable for inclusion in Fedora proper:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-January/002054.html

As for the free vs. nonfree issue, as Rex and Goran point out, the policy says
free for Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora Licensing Guidelines)
which the Fedora project cannot ship due to other reasons, which fits
winetricks' situation perfectly.

While I don't entirely disagree with the reasoning of the people who believe
this should go into nonfree, I believe they need to seek a change in the
policy, and this review request is not really the appropriate forum for such
discussions.  (I don't even know what the appropriate forum for that would be,
RPMFusion doesn't seem to have a Board or a FESCo to take matters like this
to...)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #42 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2012-11-14 
08:52:50 CET ---
To me the center of the whole discussion is code versus content. Downloaders
for non-free content are fine, and are often even in Fedora, but this is not a
downloader for non free content, it is a downloader for non free code. And that
to me clearly puts it in nonfree.

As for the rules for including in rpmfusion-free (In reply to comment #37):
  Why do you think that make it eligible for RPM Fusion free section ?
 
 Maybe the question was more aimed at the reporter than to me.  But since I
 accepted it in my review, maybe I should motivate how *I* reasoned:
 
 According to http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved 
 there
 are two criteria for a package to be eligible for the free section:
 
 1) Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora Licensing Guidelines)
 2) the Fedora project cannot ship due to other reasons

There are 2 reasons for rpmfusions existence:

1) Fedora does not ship some fully FOSS software because of legal worries about
how various laws in the US apply to the software in question, this is what
rpmfusion-free is for.

2) Fedora does not ship the software because it either is not free according to
Fedora's definition of free, this is what rpmfusion-nonfree is for.

Although I'm sure that one could argue that 1) might somehow somewhat apply to
winetricks, to me the main reason for it not going into Fedora-proper is 2),
thus it belongs in nonfree.

Another way of looking at this, is if the legal situation in the US would get
fixed / improved, could the package then be moved into Fedora proper, and for
winetricks to me the answer clearly is no and thus winetricks belongs in
nonfree.

NB I still hope / dream that one day we can completely get rid of
rpmfusion-free, moving everything there to Fedora proper :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com

--- Comment #38 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2012-11-12 
09:40:05 CET ---
Hi,

(In reply to comment #37)
  Why do you think that make it eligible for RPM Fusion free section ?
 
 Maybe the question was more aimed at the reporter than to me.  But since I
 accepted it in my review, maybe I should motivate how *I* reasoned:
 
 According to http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved 
 there
 are two criteria for a package to be eligible for the free section:
 
 1) Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora Licensing Guidelines)
 2) the Fedora project cannot ship due to other reasons
 
 Winetricks is licenced under LGPLv2+, which meets requirement 1.
 
 According to 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits
 a software which downloads code bundles from the internet in order to be
 functional or useful is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora.  Doing that 
 is
 the very purpose of winetricks.  So there is an other reason meeting 
 criteria
 2.
 
 Isn't there something wrong in this reasoning?

I'm fine with having winetricks in rpmfusion, but the above is simply arguing
that a circle is also a square. winetricks sole purpose is to install
proprietary software, and once installed it is not involved in running this non
free software at all, to me this clearly makes it non-free.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #39 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-11-12 15:49:24 
CET ---
 the above is simply arguing that a circle is also a square

I was only trying to understand the instructions.

What I read at http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved I
understand it as it is the license of the content of the package that decides
which repository to use.  Winetricks itself is certainly free.

You seem to add a rule saying approximately a package that exclusively
operates on proprietary software is put in the non-free repository, regarding
of its own license.  Or some more general version of that rule.

Maybe it is intended that way.  But if that is the case, I would certainly
recommend clarifying the packaging guidelines referenced above.  It is not at
all clear from reading the instructions.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu

--- Comment #40 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2012-11-12 16:47:42 CET 
---
I do have to side with strict reading of the page in question, and would tend
to agree that Hans' interpretation goes beyond that (ie, I don't agree with
it).

That said, This package is not eligible for Fedora because, while it is free
itself, it is used to install numerous non-free software packages. I don't
agree with this either neccessarily.  Did you get this interpretation from
fedora-legal or some other authoritative source?

I ask because I believe there are several games in fedora that include
download-helper's to fetch non-free content too.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com

--- Comment #41 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2012-11-12 18:44:41 
CET ---
There are also downloaders which handles video from youtube and similar sites.
They (mostly) download non-free content, but are in fedora. One example is
get-flash-videos, originally from the rpmfusion wishlist but nevertheless in
Fedora after some discussions then.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |4, 33

--- Comment #37 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-11-11 22:47:19 
CET ---
 Why do you think that make it eligible for RPM Fusion free section ?

Maybe the question was more aimed at the reporter than to me.  But since I
accepted it in my review, maybe I should motivate how *I* reasoned:

According to http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Your_package_gets_approved there
are two criteria for a package to be eligible for the free section:

1) Open Source Software (as defined by the Fedora Licensing Guidelines)
2) the Fedora project cannot ship due to other reasons

Winetricks is licenced under LGPLv2+, which meets requirement 1.

According to 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits
a software which downloads code bundles from the internet in order to be
functional or useful is not acceptable for inclusion in Fedora.  Doing that is
the very purpose of winetricks.  So there is an other reason meeting criteria
2.

Isn't there something wrong in this reasoning?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|4, 33   |3

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #36 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-11-06 22:03:17 
CET ---
(In reply to comment #0)
...
 This package is not eligible for Fedora because, while it is free itself, it 
 is
 used to install numerous non-free software packages.  Typically it downloads 
 an
 installer from an official source and simply runs its via Wine, so users have
 the opportunity to review the EULA of individual packages to see if the terms
 are legal and/or acceptable to them before installing non-free software on
 their systems.

Why do you think that make it eligible for RPM Fusion free section ?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #34 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-11-04 
05:20:35 CET ---
(In reply to comment #33)
  I did it that way because somewhere I got the impression that %build should 
  do
  nothing for noarch packages.
 
 Uh, that sounds odd.  Why would that be?

Yeah, I guess that doesn't really make sense.

 This package is *ACCEPTED*.

Thanks!

 PS.
 If you would like to add Swedish versions of the documentation to your package
 (second should point), here it is:

Thanks for this!  I'll add it when I import the package into CVS.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||33

--- Comment #35 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-11-04 
05:22:45 CET ---
Package CVS request
==
Package Name: winetricks
Short Description: Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX
Owners: patches
Branches: f16 f17 f18
InitialCC:
--
License tag: free

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |4

--- Comment #33 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-10-30 19:33:14 
CET ---
  Why not just do %doc %SOURCE2

 This doesn't work.

I had a memory of doing that.  But you are right, it doesn't work.  And it is
documented on
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch09s05s03.html
so I guess I'm confusing it with something else I did.  Sorry for that
confusion.

 I did it that way because somewhere I got the impression that %build should do
 nothing for noarch packages.

Uh, that sounds odd.  Why would that be?

As counter examples, all Java packages I have seen do the compilation in
%build.  And the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java has several
examples of using %build.  Many of those packages are noarch.

You had a discussion earlier in this bugzilla about having an explicit %build
section even if it is empty.  But I don't see anything here that says it HAS to
be empty.

So while I still don't insist on you moving the image formatting, I don't think
there is any rule against it.

 winetricks brings in enough GNOME stuff to ensure that directory exists.

Ah, I see, it is pulled in via zenity which requires gtk3 which requires
hicolor-icon-theme!  Yes, then it is ok.

So, the only remaining question is about where to run rsvg-convert, and I
already said I don't think this is a blocker if you don't agree with me.

This package is *ACCEPTED*.

PS.
If you would like to add Swedish versions of the documentation to your package
(second should point), here it is:

Summary(sv): Ett enkelt sätt att undvika problem med Wine
%description -l sv
Winetricks är ett enkelt sätt att undvika problem med Wine.

Det har en meny över spel/program som stödjs och för vilka det installerar sätt
att gå runt problem automatiskt.  Det låter dig också installera saknade DLL:er
eller justera diverse inställningar i Wine individuellt.

Det kan användas via ett grafiskt gränssnitt eller från kommandoraden, vilket
du föredrar.  Kommandoradsläget är speciellt användbart som en byggsten i
elegantare framändar till Wine och i automatiserad regressionstestning.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #31 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-10-30 
02:51:07 CET ---
Thanks for taking this!

(In reply to comment #30)
 Issues
 ==
 - As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct
 version of the script.

Fixed.

 - Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path?  Why
 not just do %doc %SOURCE2 in the %files section, and take advantage of the
 automatic handling in rpm?

This doesn't work.  RPM apparently expects to find %doc entries in the BUILD
directory.  I ended up just copying %SOURCE2 in %prep and then using %doc
properly from there.

 - I would probably have considered the rsvg-convert call as part of %build
 rather than %prep.  But it's a matter of taste; if you disagree I won't 
 insist.

I did it that way because somewhere I got the impression that %build should do
nothing for noarch packages.

 - The Fedora packaging of Wine uses the category X-Wine.  Maybe it would make
 sense to use it in winetricks too?

Fixed.

 - Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
 subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right? 
 Unless I misunderstand the rules
 (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership),
 that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
 children.

That says directories should be owned by something in the natural dependency
chain.  winetricks brings in enough GNOME stuff to ensure that directory
exists. 

 
 MUST Items
 ==
 [-] rpmlint output is clean [the script version issue]

rpmlint output is now clean:

$ rpmlint SPECS/winetricks.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/winetricks-20120912-2.fc17.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

 [-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source

Fixed, as mentioned above.

 [-] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create 
 a
 directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create 
 that
 directory.

This is fine, as explained above.

 [?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.

This should be fixed now.

The new version is here:
Spec:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120912-2.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #32 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-10-30 03:21:45 CET ---
  - Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path?  
  Why
  not just do %doc %SOURCE2 in the %files section, and take advantage of the
  automatic handling in rpm?
 
 This doesn't work.  RPM apparently expects to find %doc entries in the BUILD
 directory.  I ended up just copying %SOURCE2 in %prep and then using %doc
 properly from there.

Yeah, if I remember correctly if you use a full path it doesn't copy the file
to %{_docdir} as it assumes it was put there for a reason, it only marks that
file as documentation in the resultant RPM.

  - Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
  subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right? 
  Unless I misunderstand the rules
  (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership),
  that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
  children.
 
 That says directories should be owned by something in the natural dependency
 chain.  winetricks brings in enough GNOME stuff to ensure that directory
 exists. 

Although it's not specified in the guidelines, the general practice I've
developed and seen used is to just Requires: (not BuildRequires)
hicolor-icon-theme since it owns that directory.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #30 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-10-27 21:47:32 
CEST ---
Alright, here is my review:

Keys

[+] package passes
[0] not applicable
[-] package fails

Issues
==
- As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct
version of the script.

- Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path?  Why
not just do %doc %SOURCE2 in the %files section, and take advantage of the
automatic handling in rpm?

- I would probably have considered the rsvg-convert call as part of %build
rather than %prep.  But it's a matter of taste; if you disagree I won't insist.

- The Fedora packaging of Wine uses the category X-Wine.  Maybe it would make
sense to use it in winetricks too?

- Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right? 
Unless I misunderstand the rules
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership),
that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and
children.


MUST Items
==
[-] rpmlint output is clean [the script version issue]
[+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] The package must meet the Licensing Guidelines.  [I.e., it does meet the
RPM Fusion rules, but can't be in Fedora itself because of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits]
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] The license file must be included in %doc.
[+] The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] The package MUST successfully compile and build
[0] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[0] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[0] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[0] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[-] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[+] A package must not list a file more than once
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[0] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[0] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[0] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[0] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency
[0] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


SHOULD Items

[+] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[0] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[0] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[0] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[0] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[+] Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||goe...@uddeborg.se
 Blocks|2   |3
 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |goe...@uddeborg.se
   |mfusion.org |

--- Comment #28 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-10-23 21:40:37 
CEST ---
I just realized you are now a Fedora packager, so you don't need a sponsor any
more.  That means I can do the review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #29 from Göran Uddeborg goe...@uddeborg.se 2012-10-23 22:02:48 
CEST ---
Eh, your updated SRPM does not seem to contain the version of winetricks it
claims it should.  Something went wrong in the packaging?

22:00 freddi$ curl
http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120912-1.fc17.src.rpm | rpm2cpio | cpio
-i winetricks
  % Total% Received % Xferd  Average Speed   TimeTime Time  Current
 Dload  Upload   Total   SpentLeft  Speed
100  154k  100  154k0 0  91502  0  0:00:01  0:00:01 --:--:--  101k
1328 blocks
22:01 freddi$ grep ^WINETRICKS_VERSION winetricks
WINETRICKS_VERSION=20120308

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #27 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-09-30 
04:06:27 CEST ---
Updated to latest upstream release:

Spec:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120912-1.fc17.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|30  |

--- Comment #23 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-07-16 14:32:38 
CEST ---
I'm now a Fedora packager.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com 2012-07-16 18:56:10 
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
 I'm now a Fedora packager.
please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to
the cvsextras group.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #25 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-07-17 03:15:41 
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #24)
 please create an account in fas.rpmfusion.org with the same email and apply to
 the cvsextras group.
Done with username patches. (Same as upstream FAS.


I'll update this review to the latest version soon.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #26 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com 2012-07-17 
04:09:00 CEST ---
Updated to latest upstream release and fixed to build on F17:

Spec:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20120308-1.fc17.src.rpm

Rpmlint output is identical.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #15 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-19 
09:58:49 CET ---
(In reply to comment #14)
 That checkbox just adds users to the wheel group. Both sudo and PolicyKit 
 are
 configured in modern Fedora to grant root access to users in that group.  I
 don't see any reason to prefer one over the other.
Maybe one last reason: if gksudo or kdesudo is not present, winetricks will use
sudo. Fedora doesn't provide gksudo, neither kdesudo. If winetricks is launched
through the menu and need to mount an ISO image, the sudo prompt will be
obviously invisible to the user and then discarded... How will you manage it
then?
Since sudo/gksudo/kdesudo in winetricks is only called with /bin/mount to mount
ISO files, maybe we could avoid to ask any root permission try to mount ISO
images without requiring root rights (using fuse for example, with fuseiso).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #16 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-19 
10:03:55 CET ---
(In reply to comment #14)
 That checkbox must be checked for the user to be able to gain root access via
 PolicyKit too.  (To do otherwise would be a massive security hole.  Anybody
 could get root easily!)
Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #17 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-01-19 10:23:05 
CET ---
(In reply to comment #15)
 Maybe one last reason: if gksudo or kdesudo is not present, winetricks will 
 use
 sudo. Fedora doesn't provide gksudo, neither kdesudo. If winetricks is 
 launched
 through the menu and need to mount an ISO image, the sudo prompt will be
 obviously invisible to the user and then discarded... How will you manage it
 then?
On Ubuntu, gksudo and kdesudo are just symlinks to gksu and kdesu, upstream
tools that work with both su and sudo.  I'll file a bug upstream to get them to
use those instead for better cross-distro compatibility.

 Since sudo/gksudo/kdesudo in winetricks is only called with /bin/mount to 
 mount
 ISO files, maybe we could avoid to ask any root permission try to mount ISO
 images without requiring root rights (using fuse for example, with fuseiso).
That's an even better solution which also should be suggested upstream.

(In reply to comment #16)
 Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?
pkexec requests the currently running user's password (like sudo), and will
fail if the logged in user doesn't have authorization for the requested task
via PolicyKit.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #18 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-19 
10:28:39 CET ---
 (In reply to comment #16)
  Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?
 pkexec requests the currently running user's password (like sudo), and will
 fail if the logged in user doesn't have authorization for the requested task
 via PolicyKit.
No, it will require the root password, and only this password, unless a
specific PolicyKit conf. file is written to change this behaviour (according to
« man pkexec »).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #19 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-01-19 10:43:28 
CET ---
(In reply to comment #18)
  (In reply to comment #16)
   Having a graphical prompt asking for the root password is a security hole?
  pkexec requests the currently running user's password (like sudo), and will
  fail if the logged in user doesn't have authorization for the requested task
  via PolicyKit.
 No, it will require the root password, and only this password, unless a
 specific PolicyKit conf. file is written to change this behaviour (according 
 to
 « man pkexec »).
That might be PolicyKit upstream's default, but in Fedora it always asks for
the current user's password.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #20 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-19 
10:45:57 CET ---
(In reply to comment #19)
 That might be PolicyKit upstream's default, but in Fedora it always asks for
 the current user's password.
I'm afraid to tell you it's not ^^.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #21 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2012-01-19 12:14:44 
CET ---
(In reply to comment #20)
 (In reply to comment #19)
  That might be PolicyKit upstream's default, but in Fedora it always asks for
  the current user's password.
 I'm afraid to tell you it's not ^^.
Don't take my word for it.  Take a look at /etc/polkit-1/localauthority.conf.d.
 50-localauthority.conf disables authorization with the root password, while
60-desktop-policy.conf authorizes users in the wheel group.  You can't get
PolicyKit auth with the root pw without deleting/overriding these two files. 
The former is shipped in the polkit package while the latter is shipped in the
polkit-desktop-policy package brought in by most Fedora DEs.

I just tested, and my sudo-enabled account requests my own password when
running pkexec echo foo and fails with the root password, while a vanilla
account on my system fails completely.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #12 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2012-01-18 16:13:30 CET ---
(In reply to comment #11)
 I've packaged winetricks too, I put the .spec and the src.rpm if it can help:
   http://pikachu.2014.free.fr/public/packages/winetricks/winetricks.spec

Are you taking over the review request from T.C. then?


 http://pikachu.2014.free.fr/public/packages/winetricks/winetricks-0-0.1.20120601svn755.fc16.src.rpm
 The main differences with T.C.'s work are:
 - the sources, pulled from upstream VCS, so that the packaged version of
 winetricks is clearly identified
 - a patch to make winetricks use pkexec instead of sudo, since sudo is not
 configured by default on Fedora.

Do you mean a graphical sudo here? Since Fedora 15 anyone marked as an
administrator has sudo access from the command line.

Richard

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #13 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-19 
00:10:42 CET ---
 Are you taking over the review request from T.C. then?
No, I just wanted to bring a different view on the package. It's still T.C.'s
review, and I'm not a sponsor here ^^.

 Do you mean a graphical sudo here?
Not exactly, since pkexec doesn't rely on sudo, put on PolicyKit. As called in
winetricks, sudo seems to be used in a Ubuntu-centric context (that is to say
as a root substitute, whatever the command called with it). With PolicyKit, we
don't need anymore sudo to be configured.

 Since Fedora 15 anyone marked as an
 administrator has sudo access from the command line.
If I remember well, it's not enabled by default (a checkbox in the Anaconda
post-installation wizard must be enabled).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com

--- Comment #11 from Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2...@gmail.com 2012-01-18 
01:42:13 CET ---
I've packaged winetricks too, I put the .spec and the src.rpm if it can help:
  http://pikachu.2014.free.fr/public/packages/winetricks/winetricks.spec
 
http://pikachu.2014.free.fr/public/packages/winetricks/winetricks-0-0.1.20120601svn755.fc16.src.rpm
The main differences with T.C.'s work are:
- the sources, pulled from upstream VCS, so that the packaged version of
winetricks is clearly identified
- a patch to make winetricks use pkexec instead of sudo, since sudo is not
configured by default on Fedora.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-12-09 22:33:36 CET ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 Ok, sorry I thought r666 was the latest trunk revision.
 As you need to create a tarball anyway, is there a reason not to go with trunk
 head ?

I'm confused. Since this is such a small script and upstream does not provide a
tarball, why bother compressing it?

Couldn't you just use the download link as the source?

Source0:  http://winetricks.org/winetricks

Then just skip %setup and install it manually:

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
install -pm 0755 %{SOURCE0} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/

Richard

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #9 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org 2011-12-10 01:13:38 CET 
---
(In reply to comment #8)
 I'm confused. Since this is such a small script and upstream does not provide 
 a
 tarball, why bother compressing it?
 
 Couldn't you just use the download link as the source?

That's what I did originally, but Xavier suggested I use a tarball from SVN
instead.

I reverted it back to using the shell script download, bumped to the latest
upstream release, and shamelessly stole an icon from Ubuntu.

Spec: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM: http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-2015-1.fc16.src.rpm


$ rpmlint SPECS/winetricks.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/winetricks-2015-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992

--- Comment #10 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2011-12-10 02:58:26 CET ---
Yeah, I'm sure he had his reasoning, but IMHO, you should prefer upstream
packaging over doing your own (in this case, that means no packaging) and
prefer releases over SVN snapshots. 

Interesting. In looking at your spec I see you're creating a 48x48 icon from
the scaleable icon. I did something similar in a package but I used mogrify
from ImageMagick instead.

I'll check for any additional issues, but I'm not yet a sponsor so I can't do
your official review.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992


Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ser...@serjux.com




--- Comment #7 from Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com  2011-10-21 22:14:53 ---
I also am interested  , I will test it on F15 .


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992





--- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org  2011-10-20 12:25:07 
---
The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

You'd rather use svn export to generate the tarball. Also, you could add
something like %global svn_changeset 666 and use it in the spec file, rather
than hardcoding the changeset.

The %attr for the man page is not needed in the %file section.
Also, replace the .gz by .*, in case the compression method for manpages
changes someday.

As winetricks provides a GUI, you must install a desktop file. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

Can you explain the need for the manual Requires: ? Especially coreutils,
xdg-utils and perl.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992





--- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org  2011-10-20 13:46:28 
---
rpmlint on the srpm is not clean :
winetricks.src: W: strange-permission winetricks.spec 0600L
winetricks.src: W: no-%build-section
winetricks.src: W: invalid-url Source0: winetricks-20110629.tar.xz

Please change specfile perms to 644.
Please add a %build section either empty or better with a comment saying
there's nothing to build.
The invalid url for source0 can be ignored.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992





--- Comment #5 from T.C. Hollingsworth t...@tchol.org  2011-10-20 14:21:30 ---

(In reply to comment #3)
 The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages

It's my understanding that listing the snapshot in the release is only required
for pre- and post-release snapshots.  This is an official stable release; we're
just using SVN since upstream doesn't provide proper tarballs.

 You'd rather use svn export to generate the tarball. Also, you could add
 something like %global svn_changeset 666 and use it in the spec file, rather
 than hardcoding the changeset.

Fixed.

 The %attr for the man page is not needed in the %file section.

Strangely, yesterday rpmlint gave a spurious-executable-perm error on the
manpage, but it isn't today.  (F16 bug perhaps?)  Fixed.

 Also, replace the .gz by .*, in case the compression method for manpages
 changes someday.
 
 As winetricks provides a GUI, you must install a desktop file. See
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

Fixed these two also.

 Can you explain the need for the manual Requires: ? Especially coreutils,
 xdg-utils and perl.

RPM's automatic dependency generator picks up nothing but /bin/sh so it seems I
have to specify everything:

$ rpm -qpR winetricks-20110629-2.noexplicitrequires.fc16.noarch.rpm 
/bin/sh  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) = 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) = 5.2-1

Regarding the specific packages you mentioned:  coreutils is needed for
sha1sum, xdg-utils is needed because it uses xdg-open, and Perl is used by
one of the tricks to edit config files.

(In reply to comment #4)
 rpmlint on the srpm is not clean :

Also fixed.

--

Spec:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks.spec
SRPM:  http://tchol.org/rpmfusion/winetricks-20110629-3.fc16.src.rpm

$ rpmlint winetricks.spec
winetricks.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: winetricks-20110629.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint winetricks-20110629-3.fc16.src.rpm 
winetricks.src: W: invalid-url Source0: winetricks-20110629.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint winetricks-20110629-3.fc16.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992





--- Comment #6 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org  2011-10-20 14:50:19 
---
(In reply to comment #5)
 (In reply to comment #3)
  The release tag is not correct. It should be 2.20110629svn666. See
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
 
 It's my understanding that listing the snapshot in the release is only 
 required
 for pre- and post-release snapshots.  This is an official stable release; 
 we're
 just using SVN since upstream doesn't provide proper tarballs.
 
Ok, sorry I thought r666 was the latest trunk revision.
As you need to create a tarball anyway, is there a reason not to go with trunk
head ?

I'm fine with all the other fixes, thanks for the quick answer.
I will not go further into the review, as I think the package is pretty clean
now. Let's wait for a sponsor to continue the review.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1992] Review Request: winetricks - Package manager for Win32 DLLs and applications on POSIX

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992


Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||xav...@bachelot.org




--- Comment #1 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org  2011-10-19 16:45:06 
---
I'm not a sponsor so this is an informal review. Here are a couple comments :

- Source files are not valid, you should create an svn snapshot from upstream
source code and work from there. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control

- You don't need the BuildRoot tag, the rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning
of the %prep section and the whole %clean section unless you want to build for
EL5.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag 

- The %defattr line in the %files section is not needed unless you want to
build for EL5.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

- The install of the winetricks file could be made simpler :
install -Dp -m0755 %SOURCE0 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/winetricks

- Same for the manpage. Also no need to gzip it, rpmbuild will take care of
that.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.