Bug 1392950

Hello

I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial. Also, I do not have s390 or s390x so I can't build it but I have some comments.

- Summary:
I propose to remove "Provides a "

- Source0:
At the end, you should use %{name}-%{version}.tgz

- Patch0:
Also, use %{version}

- In %package, do not specify the group

- In %package, I think you have to add the %{?_isa} to requires

- %package static
Provides:	foo-static = %{version}-%{release} <== Typo for "foo" ?

- %prep
I think you can use %autosetup

- %files doc
Is there a reason you are using a different license file than "%files"

Regards

(In reply to Thomas Andrejak from comment #1)
> Hello
> 
> I'm not a packager yet, hence the review is unofficial. Also, I do not have
> s390 or s390x so I can't build it but I have some comments.
> 

you should be able to run "s390-koji build --scratch f26 your.src.rpm", there are also "arm-koji" and "ppc-koji" for F < 26

formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:

OK      source files match upstream:
            e0a0c4c73a63c6a8c5281bab9508dc634f39925a  qclib-1.2.0.tgz
OK      package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK*     specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK      dist tag is present.
OK      license field matches the actual license.
OK      license is open source-compatible (BSD). License text included in package.
OK      latest version is being packaged.
OK      BuildRequires are proper.
BAD     compiler flags are appropriate.
OK      package builds in mock (Rawhide/s390x).
OK      debuginfo package looks complete.
OK*     rpmlint is silent.
BAD     final provides and requires look sane.
OK      %check is present and all tests pass.
OK      shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
BAD     owns the directories it creates.
OK      doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK      no duplicates in %files.
OK      file permissions are appropriate.
BAD     correct scriptlets present.
OK      code, not content.
OK*     documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK      %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK      headers in devel
OK      no pkgconfig files.
OK      no libtool .la droppings.
OK      not a GUI app.

- you can drop the Group tag, it isn't used
- Source0 should be in %{name}-%{version}.tgz form
- Summary could be simplified a bit to "Library for extraction of system information for Linux on z Systems"
- the build is "silent" (no visible compile commands), but seems that upstream not distro CFLAGS are used
- rpmlint complains a bit
qclib-static.s390x: W: no-documentation
qclib.s390x: W: no-documentation
qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
qclib.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 1)
qclib-devel.s390x: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
qclib-devel.s390x: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
-> drop the commented out line 23 and fix the mixed tabs and spaces
- foo-static is Provided in the static subpackage, should be %{name}-static
- the devel package should Require the base package with %{_isa} (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package)
- /usr/share/doc/packages/qclib/ is created, but not owned by the doc subpackage
- you can drop the scriptlets for the devel subpackage, ldconfig makes sense only for the runtime lib
- my personal opinion is that the separate doc subpackage is not needed if the rpm sizes are in low 100kB and can be merged with the devel subpackage
- I would add the README as documentation into the base package
- the path in the doc package shouldn't contain the "packages" part (debianism in upstream Makefile?)

Update addressing mentioned points:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/qclib.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/qclib-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Thank you for the review.

All looks good now except the %doc files, specifically the docs dir, which is not owned in the final rpm. I think we need the docs dir to be configurable in the makefile.

Making doc dir configurable:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/qclib.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/qclib-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Just update the spec file to show full gcc command line and fixed owning of %{_docdir}/%{name}

All issues were fixed, the package is APPROVED.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/qclib

------- Comment From mgrf.com 2017-09-13 09:55 EDT-------
Dan,
I guess this can be closed "done" as it is part of Fedora 25 already - isn't it ?

(In reply to IBM Bug Proxy from comment #10)
> ------- Comment From mgrf.com 2017-09-13 09:55 EDT-------
> Dan,
> I guess this can be closed "done" as it is part of Fedora 25 already - isn't
> it ?

correct, it's included in F-27 and Rawhide, so all is good