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=519071

Dominic Hopf dmaphy@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

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=519071

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |christoph.wickert@googlemai | |l.com

--- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@googlemail.com 2009-08-28 17:45:28 EDT --- Pleas note that

%post /usr/bin/update-desktop-database -q || :

%postun /usr/bin/update-desktop-database -q || :

is not necessary, because the desktop file contains no mimetype. This is only needed it an application is supposed to open a certain mime type, so the "Open with..." entry gets created.

And of course,

Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils

are not necessary ether. This would only be neccessary if there was a mime type AND you want to build this package on EPEL/Fedora < 5, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database

I don't like the summary. Summary should be short an precise but not whole sentences. How about: "Tool to control applications or presentations with a Wiimote"?

I didn't test it, but

%if 0%{?fedora} <= 11 BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel %else BuildRequires: libXi-devel %endif

looks bogus to me, as libXi-devel requires xorg-x11-proto-devel.

%{_mandir}/man1/wiipresent.1* does not need to be tagged as %doc, rpmbuild will take care of this. It doesn't do no harm, it's just a hint.

Finally: the build root tag should be

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

or even better

%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

Doesn't really matter ether, but IMO for new packages we should follow the guidelines from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

That's all from my side, nothing more to add.

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=519071

--- Comment #4 from Jens Kuehnel bugzilla-redhat@jens.kuehnel.org 2009-08-28 18:51:44 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/wiipresent.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.src.rpm

Fixed all marked topics in 0.7.5.2-3

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=519071

Dominic Hopf dmaphy@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dmaphy@gmail.com

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=519071

--- Comment #7 from Dominic Hopf dmaphy@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-31 19:02:02 EDT --- No Problem, I was able now to have another look on your package. :)

$ rpmlint wiipresent.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint wiipresent-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm wiipresent-debuginfo-0.7.5.2-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm wiipresent.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.5.2-2 ['0.7.5.2-3.fc11', '0.7.5.2-3']

NOTE: You forgot to update your %changelog.

MUSTs -----

OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source, md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully OK: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives OK: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames

SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

BLOCKERS: - As written above, you forgot to update your %changelog, i'd like to see this added before approving

Just as hints: - Indenting the arguments for desktop-file-install would make the spec i bit more legible imho. It's on your's if you like to do so. - I don't see why you are using a wildcard for the manpage, I think writing 'wiipresent.1.gz' would do the job also. If there is no specific reason for that I would recommend you to fix that with your next release.

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=519071

Michael Monreal michael.monreal+bugs@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael.monreal+bugs@gmail. | |com

--- Comment #8 from Michael Monreal michael.monreal+bugs@gmail.com 2009-12-05 07:36:27 EDT --- It has been some month... seeing if this is just blocking on the changelog, is there hope we will see this package included soon?