Bug 406

(In reply to comment #0)
> == rpmfusion-cvs ==
> rpmfusion-cvs allows you to easily checkout modules from RPM Fusion's cvs.
> Usage: rpmfusion-cvs [free|nonfree] [module1] [OPTIONAL module2 module3 etc]

My 2 cent: I'd prefer to use the commands rpmfusion-free-cvs and rpmfusion-nonfree-cvs
* as that way autocompletion work
* it makes it obvious how to use 
* it then works just like fedora-cvs

Done - here's the updated version:

SPEC: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/rpmfusion-packager/rpmfusion-packager.spec
SRPM: http://downloads.diffingo.com/rpmfusion/rpmfusion-packager/rpmfusion-packager-0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm

This should be a formal review which respects the Fedora guidelines, but I don't have any package in rpmfusion yet so I don't know if I can take ownership of that...

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
OK, 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK, corresponds to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK, rpmfusion-packager
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK, it matches https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
OK, GPLv2+ and the licence is included in the source code
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK, GPLv2+ and the licence is included in the source code
# 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, %doc contains "COPYING"
# 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, rpmfusion-packager-0.2.tar.bz2. MD5 is a4e3dcca05f711243ee949535d8f957c
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
OK, tested on x86_64
# 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.
OK, tested a build in mock for i386 and x86_64
# 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, build tested in mock
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK, Not concerned here
# 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.
OK, not concerned here
# 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, not concerned here
# 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, everything is owned
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
OK, no excessive rights
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
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).
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK, not concerned
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
OK, not concerned
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
# 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.
OK, not concerned
# SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK, not concerned
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK, it builds
# SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Only tested for x86_64 and i386
# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Not tested as i don't have any package in RPMFusion right now
# SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
Not concerned
# SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
Not concerned
# 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.
Not concerned
# SHOULD: 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.
Not concerned


So basically everything looks fine except that I couldn't test the package in the real world.

I'll let this bug open for 1-2 days if someone else wants to add something before I formally accept it.

> This should be a formal review which respects the Fedora guidelines, but I
> don't have any package in rpmfusion yet so I don't know if I can take ownership
> of that...

If you're sponsored in either Fedora or RPM Fusion, you can do reviews, otherwise you have to get sponsored first.

2 days passed since the review and nobody complained. for me, this package is considered as accepted.

(In reply to comment #6)
> 2 days passed since the review and nobody complained. for me, this package is
> considered as accepted.

Please assign the bug to yourself and block the tracker bug RF_ACCEPT (bug #4).

Reassigned the bug to myself and blocked RF_ACCEPT

Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: rpmfusion-config-display
Short Description: Tools for setting up a rpmfusion maintainer environment
Owners: firewing
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC: 
----------------------
License tag: free

(In reply to comment #9)
> Package CVS request

Done

> Package Name: rpmfusion-config-display

I assume it was rpmfusion-packager? ;-)

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Package CVS request
> 
> Done
> 
> > Package Name: rpmfusion-config-display
> 
> I assume it was rpmfusion-packager? ;-)
> 
Oh, sorry about that... My sleeptyping is acting up ;)

Imported & built - closing

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: rpmfusion-packager
Updated RPMFusion Owners: s.adam@diffingo.com,ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com