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=472060 --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2008-11-19 08:28:46 EDT --- John, Fabian, as I'm sponsoring both of you I'd like to take this opportunity for a little lesson in packaging practice ;) (In reply to comment #1) The packaging guidelines state that macros should be used "consistently", but not where ever possible. This means not to mix different macro styles (e.g. %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) but it does not mean that every appearance of foo needs to be replaced with %{name}. In this example the only macro that adds real value is %{version}, because you don't need to change the Source0 tag on updates. Using %{name} would only add value for a packager, who maintains _a_lot_ of packages from sf.net, so he can use the same Source0 tag for all his spec files. In fact I know many packagers, who try to avoid macros in the source url so it can be used by wget and friends more easily. Quote from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros "Having macros in a Source: or Patch: line is a matter of style" see above: '%setup -q -n mumbles-%{version}' is sufficient Please don't add PKG-INFO, all it's info is in the spec file and thus in 'rpm -i mumbles' Which is perfectly ok. "Use macros instead of hard-coded directory names" only applies to directories that are covered by one of the macros from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros I hope I have made some things more clearly for both of you. Nevertheless Fabian's comments are all helpful and show that he has read and understood the Guidelines well. @Fabian: If you continue working like this I will nominate you for becoming a sponsor in the near future. -- 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=472060 --- Comment #4 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-11-19 11:45:36 EDT --- Thank you both for the comments. I have the updates here. http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/115301/mumbles.spec http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/115301/mumbles-0.4-2.fc9.src.rpm -- 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=472060 --- Comment #6 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-11-20 09:44:07 EDT --- Fixed buildroot http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/115301/mumbles-0.4-3.fc9.src.rpm http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/115301/mumbles.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=472060 Fabian Affolter <fabian(a)bernewireless.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=472060 --- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2008-12-14 19:22:04 EDT --- This is due to Patch0: mumbles-sitedir.patch ... %prep %setup -q -n mumbles-%{version} %patch -p1 needs to be %patch0 -p1 ^ or even better: %patch0 -p1 -b .sitedir Backing up patched files is useful for debugging patch problems. -- 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=472060 --- Comment #9 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-21 12:48:13 EDT --- Thanks for the help with the patch line, Chris. Here it is with the fix. Builds in Koji now. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1014172 http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles.spec http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles-0.4-4.fc10.src.rpm -- 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=472060 --- Comment #11 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-23 11:35:12 EDT --- Thanks again for your help, Chris. Here it is with your fixes from #10. It builds in mock against rawhide for me. http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles.spec http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles-0.4-5.fc10.src.rpm -- 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=472060 --- Comment #12 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2009-01-02 21:13:02 EDT --- Sorry it took so long, holydays, etc... REVIEW for 7d6514c04ab3d2914b6cf971dba30c2c mumbles-0.4-5.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/mumbles-0.4-5.fc11.* mumbles.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mumbles/GrowlNetwork.py 0644 mumbles.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mumbles/Mumbles.py 0644 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. because this python, save to ignore OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines: - IMO Group tag should be 'User Interface/Desktops' instead of 'System Environment/Libraries' - Timestamp of Source0 does not match, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. Note: GrowlNetwork.py is BSD OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5 a6b24223dc23e5022332586ffc454e84 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - 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. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - 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. [10] N/A - 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. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. The %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package contains code. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should 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) OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A - 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. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. FIX - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. But the file needs to be fixed, the category "Application" is obsolete according to latest fdo specs, see http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html Add --remove-category="Application" to desktop-file-install You should also add-category="Gnome" OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into noarch rpms OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. FIX - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane, but update-desktop-database if not needed, because mumbles.desktop contains no MimeType, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. OK - SHOULD: The package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. Package looks good so far, but needs some final fixes before I will approve it. BTW: The 'trick' from comment # 10 is not really necessary, %{python_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info will also work. -- 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=472060 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2009-01-02 21:38:40 EDT --- (Sorry, hit the Commit button to fast) The package also 'Requires: dbus', because dbus-python only pulls in dbus-libs, not dbus itself. -- 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=472060 --- Comment #16 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-03 18:14:20 EDT --- With fixes from comments 12-15 http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles.spec http://transfer.eragen.com/rpm/mumbles-0.4-6.fc10.src.rpm -- 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=472060 --- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2009-01-03 18:32:31 EDT --- This mean you need to run desktop-file-install twice. -- 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=472060 Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Christoph Wickert <fedora(a)christoph-wickert.de&gt; 2009-01-03 22:25:14 EDT --- Ok, that's fine with me, but you should also add GNOME and GTK in the first desktop-file-install. But you can do this after import, this package is APPROVED Good work! -- 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=472060 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; 2009-01-04 15:19:06 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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=472060 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-01-07 04:12:25 EDT --- mumbles-0.4-8.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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.