Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Mario Blättermann <mariobl(a)freenet.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mariobl(a)freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann <mariobl(a)freenet.de&gt; 2011-05-09 13:57:33 EDT --- Hi Shaun, if you are new to the packaging maintainers, I assume you need a sponsor, according to the guidelines. Am I right? If yes, you should set the flag "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" in "Blocks:". Although I'm unable to act as a sponsor, I will have a look at your package anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #3 from Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; 2011-05-09 14:19:27 EDT --- Thanks. I will need a sponsor. I've mostly only worked on the source tarball side of things. I'll add a manpage for 1.0.2. I think other distros are more strict about that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-05-24 12:54:21 EDT --- Seems good with, but a few small issues are outlined at the end of this large comment. MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. See comments below. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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 must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. NA MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. NA MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. NA MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. NA MUST: 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. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). NA MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. NA MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} NA MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. NA MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK Packaging Guidelines notes: * The BuildRoot tag can be dropped, as well as the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag * The %clean section can be dropped, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean * This package requires python at runtime, but the built package does not require python. This is a MUST fix. The preferred way to fix this in Fedora is to change your shebang to "#!/usr/bin/python -s" instead of "#!/usr/bin/env python", and rpm will automatically pick up the dep (right now, it picks up a dep for /usr/bin/env instead). The alternative would be to manually add an explicit Requires line. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires (as an additional sidenote: dmalcolm tells me that "#!/usr/bin/python -s" for all system binaries is likely to become a Fedora 16 goal, so would be nice to get that done upstream) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(shaunm(a)gnome.org) | --- Comment #6 from Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; 2011-05-26 16:27:29 EDT --- Regarding the License field in the spec file, the COPYING file basically says "GPLv3+, but the ITS files can be modified and redistributed without restriction." I do have COPYING and COPYING.GPL3 in %doc, but should License say something else to reflect this? I assumed the License field is from a semi-controlled vocabulary. Presumably there are other packages that are GPL with exceptions. I added a man page to git. rpmlint did warn about that. I've always been told to use /usr/bin/env for python, perl, etc for portability. I don't know of any modern Linux distro that doesn't put python in /usr/bin, but I don't know about other Unixes. I guess I could just change it and wait for bug reports. (I notice that xml2po uses /usr/bin/python in the shebang, and I don't remember ever seeing a bug about that.) So here's what I'll do: * Drop BuildRoot, the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install, and %clean * Change the shebang to "/usr/bin/python -s" upstream * Roll a 1.0.2 with the shebang change and the man page * Do a new spec file and SRPM with these changes Anything else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-06-03 14:21:00 EDT --- Spot, ping! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-06-03 18:01:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Cool, that's what I thought. (In reply to comment #6) I think that's it, once you provide a new spec/srpm for those, I'll approve the package and sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 --- Comment #12 from Zeeshan Ali <zali(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-06-14 15:18:25 EDT --- Yikes, I should have checked if anyone else is already on this before starting. :( Anyways, my packages are here, just in case you want to have a look for some reason: http://zeenix.fedorapeople.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-06-27 16:06:58 EDT --- Thanks for the update. F15 Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3164638 There's still an rpmlint issue, but that aside, I think this is ready for approval. itstool.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.1.0-1.fc15', '1.1.0-1'] Please fix that by updating the rpm changelog before importing into git. Approving and sponsoring. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen(a)redhat.com --- Comment #16 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-07-05 11:02:19 EDT --- Shaun, do you know what to do next here, or do you need help ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 --- Comment #18 from Christopher Aillon <caillon(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-07-05 14:46:55 EDT --- Mario, FWIW, I'm sponsoring and have already explained this to Shaun out of band. In this case, there was no %changelog entry whatsoever for the new changes, so I asked him to simply add one and replace the existing spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #20 from Shaun McCance <shaunm(a)gnome.org&gt; 2011-07-05 15:40:50 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: itstool Short Description: Translate XML with PO files using rules from the W3C ITS Owners: shaunm Branches: f15 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-07-15 21:37:47 --- Comment #22 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; 2011-07-15 21:37:47 EDT --- Build is done, so closing the bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702989 --- Comment #24 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com&gt; 2012-04-17 07:59:34 EDT --- You should be all set with commit access. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.