Bug 1058019

Have you requested upstream to set a soname?

I've just sent them a mail, let's see what they say.

The Group tag for runtime libraries is "System Environment/Libraries" for many years.

Alternatively, especially for modern releases of Fedora, the tag can be omitted:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag


> %install
> %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

Thanks for the review. I've uploaded a new version which should fix this.

http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc.spec
http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc-1.1.6-2.fc20.src.rpm


Upstream hasn't replied to my request about SONAME. Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is?

> Should I add one by hand, or is it OK as it is?

A missing soname is a reoccuring topic in the package review queue. The first question here would be "Which soname would you add, if upstream didn't support it"? 
No soname (and in particular no soversion) means, for example, that there can only be one libutf8proc.so at runtime, not multiple parallel installable versions (in case that would ever become necessary). All programs would depend on a non-versioned libutf8proc.so, which is a weak dependency. If a future upgrade touched the ABI of the library, it would break programs at runtime. Without upstream handling the API/ABI compatibility and the soname versioning, the responsibility to maintain an own soversioning scheme would be your burden as the packager.

So you conclusion would be?... ;-)

If you think I shouldn't add a SONAME, then the version above is ready for review.

Ping? With openlibm ready for review (bug 1089500), we should now be able to get Julia packaged.

This packaging draft https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanek/Draft_-_Downstream_.so_name_versioning was recently approved requiring SONAMEs, so please ping upstream again and add one if needed.

Pinged. I've found another e-mail address by digging the mail archives for another of their programs, but they're really hard to contact...

In the absence of a reply from upstream, here's a new version adding the SONAME libutf8.so.0.1:

http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc.spec
http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20.src.rpm

I think you probably should build and ship the ruby and pgsql bindings as well.

Well, I have no experience with Ruby nor PostgreSQL, so I can build these files, but I have no idea where to put them and how to test them... I guess I would put them into separate packages?

yes, separate packages.  See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby for the ruby stuff.  Maybe find another postgresql package for help with that.

Sorry. I've looked at it, and I feel like it's really too much to learn for something I'm not interested in at the moment (heck, I've a PhD to finish), and I'm not even sure people will use. If somebody comes asking for Ruby support, I'll happily cooperate, but without more expertise it's just a waste of my time as I guess somebody with more experience would package it in a few minutes.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: utf8proc
Short Description: Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
Owners: nalimilan
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I set the review flag to + on accident when taking the review.  Still need to do a formal review.

Orion, would you do the review? Thanks!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /export/home/orion/redhat/utf8proc-1.1.6/1058019-utf8proc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          utf8proc-devel-1.1.6-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc21.src.rpm
utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble
utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera
utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
utf8proc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble
utf8proc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera
utf8proc.src: W: strange-permission utf8proc-v1.1.6.tar.gz 0600L
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint utf8proc-devel utf8proc
utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
utf8proc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ignorable -> ignoble
utf8proc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera
utf8proc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
utf8proc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libutf8proc.so.0.1()(64bit)
    utf8proc(x86-64)

utf8proc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
utf8proc-devel:
    utf8proc-devel
    utf8proc-devel(x86-64)

utf8proc:
    libutf8proc.so.0.1()(64bit)
    utf8proc
    utf8proc(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.public-software-group.org/pub/projects/utf8proc/v1.1.6/utf8proc-v1.1.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fedc8fa78022eb8f0584fbc85c9f9571bcd7fd510de0ce16955289c42f4199e7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fedc8fa78022eb8f0584fbc85c9f9571bcd7fd510de0ce16955289c42f4199e7


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1058019
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: utf8proc
Short Description: Library for processing UTF-8 encoded Unicode strings
Upstream URL: http://www.public-software-group.org/utf8proc
Owners: nalimilan
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19

utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20

Thanks!

utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

utf8proc-1.1.6-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.