[Bug 651123] Review Request: sarGraphs - Graphical System Usage Web Interface

[bugzilla at redhat.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=651123

--- Comment #5 from Jeffrey Ness <jness at flip-edesign.com> 2010-11-09 10:58:49 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Jeffrey
> 
> your package will not build as it presently stands.
> 
> Please be sure to install rpmdevtools and follow all the guidelines here to
> build your Fedora package:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
> and here
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
> 
> A few things in particular:
> - your LICENSE file in your source states GPLv2 whereas you have specified GPL
> in the spec file
> - you need to specify the full URL of your Source0
> - your release number should start at 1 not 0
> - you cannot unpack files into /opt when you are building packages in your spec
> file (you should not be installing anything under /opt in any case). The line
> 'setup -q' will unpack the source named under Source0 for you into
> ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/%{name}-%{version} where your package is built. Everything in
> the spec file is executed relative to here. In your case you could omit the
> %build section and simply move the required files from this area to your
> buildroot in your %install section.
> - your %post is better suited to a README file
> - you will also need to clean up your files section, including adding a %doc
> line to include your license file and any other documents you wish to be
> included in the package such as AUTHOR, README - refer to the links above
> 
> Once you've attacked those things and can successfully build your package using
> rpmbuild be sure to run rpmlint against the generated src package and post thre
> results back here.
> 
> hope that helps,
> 
> Brendan

Hello Brendan,

Thank you very much for this information, it has been very useful in my
entering of the RPM development scene. 

I have been re-rewriting my SPEC file and took in your considerations above:

Spec URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/sarGraphs-1.1-1.spec
SRPM URL: http://flip-edesign.com/source/sarGraphs-1.1-1.src.rpm

--

I have also found the 'rpmlint' tool to be a great asset, below you can find
the current results:

rpmlint ../SRPMS/sarGraphs-1.1-1.src.rpm 
sarGraphs.src: W: summary-not-capitalized sarGraphs takes the output of sysstat
and creates a graphical PHP Web interface.
sarGraphs.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot sarGraphs takes the output of sysstat
and creates a graphical PHP Web interface.
sarGraphs.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary sarGraphs
sarGraphs.src: E: invalid-spec-name
sarGraphs.src:24: E: files-attr-not-set
sarGraphs.src:25: E: files-attr-not-set
sarGraphs.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
sarGraphs.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
sarGraphs.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
sarGraphs.src: W: no-%build-section
sarGraphs.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings.
--

I believe the 3 errors can be over looked. I do not need to set the default
file attributes, and I believe my SPEC file naming convention matches that of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Naming. As for the warnings
nothing stands out to something I would need to correct.

I'm going to attempt to build on the Fedora Build system , however at the
moment it seems the site 'https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/login' is under
high load. I will attempt one of these mock builds when the site is available.

Thanks
Jeffrey-

-- 
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.