Bug 1112337

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

Updated re comment #1, same urls.

From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries:

"Place all of the header files in the *-devel subpackage and then you must have a virtual Provide for the *-static package"

Plus, not the latest:

https://github.com/kazuho/picojson/releases

Updated: 
+ virtual provide
+ updates to 1.1 

spec: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/picojson/picojson.spec
srpm: http://tstclair.fedorapeople.org/mesos/picojson/picojson-1.1.0-1.59e3476.fc21.src.rpm

s/install/install -p/

Others are fine for me.

updated, same urls.

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

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


===== Issues =====
I don't consider these to be blockers, but should be fixed:
- Should add license/copyright text to the four example-code files
  under /usr/share/doc/picojson-devel/examples
- Should fix rpmlint error:
  picojson.src: E: description-line-too-long C - STL-frendly (arrays are represented by using std::vector, objects are std::map)
- (note, spelling error warning for 'en_US frendly')


===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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:
     "BSD (2 clause)"
[-]: %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 30720 bytes in 6 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:
[x]: 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.
[?]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: picojson-devel-1.1.0-1.59e3476.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          picojson-1.1.0-1.59e3476.fc20.src.rpm
picojson.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized
picojson.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized
picojson.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frendly -> friendly, frenziedly
picojson.src: E: description-line-too-long C - STL-frendly (arrays are represented by using std::vector, objects are std::map)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint picojson-devel
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
picojson-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
picojson-devel:
    picojson-devel
    picojson-devel(x86-64)
    picojson-static



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kazuho/picojson/archive/59e34764c56690c8e864045a642aae736c8f4769/picojson-1.1.0-59e3476.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2273168425f00c92f6337f61306aafec885789b05171c48c2c7ceb132704f46d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2273168425f00c92f6337f61306aafec885789b05171c48c2c7ceb132704f46d


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1112337
Buildroot used: fedora-20-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

> ===== Issues =====
> I don't consider these to be blockers, but should be fixed:
> - Should add license/copyright text to the four example-code files
>   under /usr/share/doc/picojson-devel/examples

https://github.com/kazuho/picojson/issues/41

> - Should fix rpmlint error:
>   picojson.src: E: description-line-too-long C - STL-frendly (arrays are
> represented by using std::vector, objects are std::map)
> - (note, spelling error warning for 'en_US frendly')

fixed.

approved

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: picojson
Short Description: A header-file-only, JSON parser / serializer in C++
Owners: tstclair
Branches: f20
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Why does this package build-require automake?
> 
> BuildRequires:  automake
>

(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #13)
> Why does this package build-require automake?
> > 
> > BuildRequires:  automake
> >

Ahh good catch, it doesn't.  
I will remove.