Getting started in Extras

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 10:37:24 +0100, David Dorgan wrote:

> > 3. post to fedora-extras-list that you're looking for a sponsor
> > 4. nag/bribe people into sponsoring you
> > 5. Once you have a sponsor and your cvs account you're in good shape.
> 
> Any chance you would have a few minutes to take a really quick glance over:
> http://www.micro-gravity.com/data/010305/cfengine-2.1.13-0.src.rpm
> and
> http://www.micro-gravity.com/data/010305/clusterssh-2.33-0.src.rpm
> 
> to see if there are any glaringly obvious mistakes before I post to the list?

Let's see. Your changes look like an ordinary version upgrade.
RPM-diff here, comments inline:

> Binary files old/cfengine-2.1.13.tar.gz and new/cfengine-2.1.13.tar.gz differ
> Binary files old/cfengine-2.1.9.tar.gz and new/cfengine-2.1.9.tar.gz differ
> diff -Nur old/cfengine.spec new/cfengine.spec
> --- old/cfengine.spec	2005-03-07 18:05:14.474299056 +0100
> +++ new/cfengine.spec	2005-03-07 18:05:14.545288264 +0100
> @@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
> -Summary: Systems administration tool for networks
> +Summary: GNU cfengine - a systems administration tool for networks

It's considered good taste to not repeat the program name in the
summary, since it is included in the package name and the
description already.

Further, while Cfengine is a "GNU package" according directory.fsf.org,
the authors called it "Cfengine" (upper-case first character) through-out
the web site and package doc files.

> -Version: 2.1.9
> -Release: 2
> +Epoch: 0
> +Version: 2.1.13
> +Release: 0 

Explicit Epoch 0 has been optional for a very long time (according to the
old fedora.us guidelines) and was removed from _all_ packages in CVS last
week. It should not be reintroduced.

First package release usually is 1, not 0.

>  %prep
> -%setup
> +%setup -n %{name}-%{version}

Note that if I were to review such a package in accordance with the
old fedora.us policies, I would never block a package which does this,
but it's redundant. Simply %setup is enough. Where the -n parameter
is needed, it most likely would need to be different anyway.

> +#---------------------------------------------------------------------

Such separator lines are considered bad taste, too. Even worse, they
are dangerous, e.g. if they are placed after scriptlet sections. Better
style is to insert two or three empty lines.

> -%defattr(-,root,root, 0755)
> +%defattr(-,root,root)

%defattr(-,root,root,0755) or %defattr(-,root,root,-) is a fine
default. Why change it?