- Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?

Name:        ne-editor
Version:     3.0.1
Release:     1%{?dist}
Summary:     Nice text editor

- Source0 is a complete link to the archive

- cd src; make NE_GLOBAL_DIR=/usr/share/ne; strip ne

Use macros as much as possible and parallel 'make':

make -C src NE_GLOBAL_DIR=%{_datadir}/ne %{?_smp_mflags}; strip ne

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

* %optflags
  - Honor %optflags. Current compilation does not other them.
    Also changing optimization level from -O2 is discouraged, please
    fix this.
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags

* Debuginfo
  - Don't strip binary. This disables debuginfo rpm generation.
    (And as I said above, currently %optflags is not honored, including
     "-g". This is one of the reason why debuginfo file is not
     generated. Remove %global debug_package %{nil} and generate
     useful debuginfo rpm correctly)

    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?

Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?  `ne' is the name of the project and
also the name of the binary.  Nobody's going to try installing `ne-editor' first.

I also maintain a few packages with two-letter names so I'm wondering why you
think it's problematic in any way.

(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
> Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?

It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not any rule that prevents this choice.
Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
> > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?
> 
> It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not
> any rule that prevents this choice.
> Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.

Well, that doesn't really answer my question why you think it's strange or bad.

And just to name a few from the top of my head -- at, mc, nc, ii, jj, st, xz, bc, ... :)

(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #5)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > > > - Very short name; can you consider to use 'ne-editor' as package name?
> > > Hmm, I'm curious -- why is this an issue?
> > 
> > It's not mandatory. If you prefer use a '2-letter' name I think there is not
> > any rule that prevents this choice.
> > Even if I don't remember any package with name so short on Fedora.
> 
> Well, that doesn't really answer my question why you think it's strange or
> bad.
> 

It's not strange neither bad, just not easily recognizable during a searching. Who does not know 'ne', can easily understand what it is already by '-editor' suffix.
That is my thought of course.

> And just to name a few from the top of my head -- at, mc, nc, ii, jj, st,
> xz, bc, ... :)

Indeed, there are there.

(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6)
> It's not strange neither bad, just not easily recognizable during a
> searching. Who does not know 'ne', can easily understand what it is already
> by '-editor' suffix.
> That is my thought of course.

Aha, I see.  Thanks.

For now I changed the name too "ne-editor" and made the other recommended changes. One thing that maybe should be considered is that other distributions (Arch, Ubuntu, Gentoo) call it "ne", but I'm not sure if that carries any weight.

Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/ne.spec?id=aa715a3603b500fdefb5ade6f3021d23287132ac
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00158379-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

- You don't use macros yet:

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/ne/syntax
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/share/ne/macros
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html

becomes

rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ne/syntax
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ne/macros
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir}
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html

- 
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_docdir}/ne-%{version}/html
mv doc/html .

you can do that with a simple

%doc doc/html

-
/usr/share/ne/syntax/*.jsf
/usr/share/ne/macros/*

becomes

%{_datadir}/ne/

to include all directories/files under /usr/share/ne

- %doc ./COPYING

Use %license for this file.

Thanks! Let me know how this looks.

Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/ne.spec?id=ed3485452bd4f741fd1ed058944f849c0d960f11
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00159238-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

(In reply to Brandon Thomas from comment #10)
> Thanks! Let me know how this looks.
> 
> Spec URL:
> http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bthomas/ne/ne-editor.git/tree/
> ne.spec?id=ed3485452bd4f741fd1ed058944f849c0d960f11
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bthomas/ne/fedora-rawhide-
> x86_64/00159238-ne-editor/ne-editor-3.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Changelog is not valid and not marked with %changelog macro.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

Stalled?

Submitter does not reply.
Review stalled.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

Bummer, I might be biased but I'd love to see ne in Fedora :). Debian/Ubuntu/OpenBS/HomeBrew have a package since a long time.

(In reply to Sebastiano Vigna from comment #16)
> Bummer, I might be biased but I'd love to see ne in Fedora :).
> Debian/Ubuntu/OpenBS/HomeBrew have a package since a long time.

As this review request is already closed, you can submit a new review request if you want to maintain this package on Fedora.