Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 ------- Additional Comments From toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-05 15:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #60) > The fixes in previous comments have either been applied upstream or are no > longer relevant. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The build now runs > from the setup.py file. The srpms are at the URI you indicated. I am building > pre-release packages from svn in readiness for 0.9 final which is due in a few > weeks. > There were some fixes to the spec file that have been lost as well. > Good to know it is building okay for you in x86_64. I'm still concerned about > David's issue however - any thoughts? What needs to happen now to get this accepted? I've found David's issue and will attach a patch that you can take upstream. As for getting this in, I don't have time for a complete review but I do have a few comments. Maybe after you fix these and apply the patch, David can continue to do the review:: * Cosmetic: The tarball you've created is really a .tar file, not a .tar.gz. Rpm knows how to handle it, however, and also compresses its payload so it's not strictly necessary to fix this. It would be nice to be accurate when a human extracts the source rpm and tries to look at the sources, though. So having jokosher-0.9.tar or actually gzipping the tarball would be appropriate :-) * A recent addition to the Packaging Guidelines is that for packaging snapshots you need to show how to recreate the snapshot either in a script that you include as another Source line or in a comment. ie:: # This tarball is a snapshot. You can recreate it by doing: # svn co -r 321 http://svn.jokosher.org/trunk jokosher-0.9 # tar -czvf jokosher-20070225.snap.tar.gz jokosher-0.9 This allows reviewers to easily check that the sources are coming from upstream. * The BuildArch: noarch is missing from the spec file * You aren't cleaning the buildroot prior to installing (rpmlint warns about this) * You aren't installing the omf file and registering with scrollkeeper within the %post/%postun in the spec file so the help files won't be found. * You aren't calling update-mime-database or update-desktop-database in the spec file's %post/%postun so jokosher's mimetype and "mailcap" entries aren't being created. * You have a raft of unowned directories. As an example, changing your file entries from this: %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/*.png into this: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ will own the jokosher directory and all of its subdirectories and files. Where you cannot do this because you don't want all of the files inside the directories you can change from this:: %exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc into this: %exclude %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/Profiler.py %dir %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.py %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyo %{python_sitelib}/Jokosher/*.pyc * It looks like you've got the jokosher help in three places: /usr/share/gnome/help/jokosher, /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/userguide, and /usr/share/doc/jokosher-0.9/jokosher It probably only neds to be in /usr/share/gnome/help/ * You need to use the %find_lang macro to include the *.mo files, not just include them in the %files section. The way you've currently got it setup, people won't be able to specify which languages they're interested in when they install this. * David's error is coming from the section of setup.py dealing with installing omf files. However, the whole handling of omf files has issues. Attaching a patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review