Bug 1520922
Summary: | Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Federico Bruni <fede> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | William Moreno <williamjmorenor> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bjorn, fede, jan.public, Marcin.Dulak, omarberroteranlkf, package-review, williamjmorenor, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | williamjmorenor:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-07-03 17:55:36 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Federico Bruni
2017-12-05 13:09:58 UTC
Hello and thanks for the interest to help with Fedora packaging. Quick check of previus steps to become a packager: Are suscrived at less to the devel-announce and packaging mainling list? Do you have a proper profile in the Fedora Wiki? A self introduction to devel is always nice to see. I had already subscribed to devel-announce. I'm now subscribed to packaging as well. A proper profile to describe who I am? I cannot log in to the wiki at the moment. It seems a problem with cookies. I've tried to clear them but didn't help. Should I introduce myself (my contributions to Free Software) here? In a nutshell, my main contributions have been: - translations english>italian for LilyPond project and a few GNOME projects such as Geary and Boxes - user support on several mailing lists - bug triaging for LilyPond and recently for Geary - building custom Linux images (see LilyDev and LilyDevOS in Github) I've been using Fedora since a couple of years, after some years of Debian. I'm interested in learning more how RPM packaging works. I've made some tries to learn programming (moved first steps in Python and Golang), but I've never had the time and the perseverance to really go on. Never say never! Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684039-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684039-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Hello Advancing with this review in fedora we do not need: rm -rf %{buildroot} And the changelog is missing the - %{version}.%{release} information. Package Review ============== Must check owned files properties, there are many conflicts. ===== MUST items ===== 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)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lkf/1520922-extractpdfmark/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(iputils, efivar-libs, gd, gc, libtomcrypt, gdbm, gpgme, rpm-plugin-selinux, python3-sqlalchemy, libmcpp, libnfsidmap, libimagequant, lua-libs, trousers, bzip2-libs, unzip, libdb-utils, xorg-x11-font-utils, gtk2, gtk3, OpenEXR-libs, libcom_err, pycryptopp, libseccomp, gnutls, npth, p11-kit, libyaml, iptables-libs, rpm-build, cryptsetup-libs, ykpers, libmodman, libselinux-utils, perl-Scalar-List-Utils, parted, zstd, mozjs17, mesa-libwayland-egl, ghostscript-x11, lua-posix, libwebp, libxslt, libpkgconf, libunistring, keyutils-libs, perl-Encode, elfutils, python2-cryptography, libgpg-error, perl-Digest-SHA, audit- libs-python3, nss-tools, perl-Data-Dumper, gawk, python2-rpm, libbasicobjects, c-ares, lua-lpeg, python2-cairo, python3-crypto, jansson, e2fsprogs-libs, libdwarf, librsvg2, lcms2, apr, libsss_nss_idmap, annobin, deltarpm, file-libs, grub2-tools, libxcb, trousers-lib, libyubikey, python3-pycurl, mokutil, zip, python3-gobject, m4, gdb-headless, vim-enhanced, libusbx, python3-psutil, compat-openssl10, qrencode-libs, libICE, drpm, libwmf- lite, createrepo_c-libs, libtasn1, python3-coverage, openssh, sqlite, http-parser, tar, diffstat, sudo, freetype, openssl, dhcp-client, libarchive, gcc, systemd-bootchart, dwz, python2-gobject, avahi-libs, pyliblzma, ncurses-libs, polkit, pigz, checkpolicy, libpsl, python2-tornado, python3-rpm, libini_config, openssh-clients, libuser, python3-tornado, perl-libs, libX11, systemtap-devel, kbd, graphviz, htop, boost-date-time, python3-cryptography, systemd, libacl, gts, libwayland-cursor, libnl3, libsecret, libSM, policycoreutils, pixman, libidn, libXxf86misc, grubby, libatomic_ops, python2-kerberos, pango, libss, libbabeltrace, systemtap-client, libpath_utils, dbus, polkit- libs, python3-systemd, perl-threads, perl-Params-Validate, libsss_certmap, python2-libcomps, rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit, cairo, audit-libs, nss-sysinit, libgcc, ilmbase, gettext-libs, p11-kit-trust, libref_array, python2-krbv, python3-cffi, libstemmer, dbus-libs, syslinux-extlinux, cairo-gobject, fftw-libs-double, at-spi2-core, usermode, bash, glibc-common, linux-atm-libs, libedit, libidn2, enchant, libuuid, subversion-libs, atk, python3-cairo, openldap, isl, ImageMagick, harfbuzz, xz, libXcomposite, mtools, gtk-update-icon- cache, vim-minimal, python3-wrapt, pcre-cpp, python2-libs, python3-markupsafe, libcrypt, groff-base, libdatrie, python3-lazy- object-proxy, gdk-pixbuf2, dhcp-libs, python2-cccolutils, libtalloc, libldb, grep, guile, pcre-utf16, libepoxy, cronie-anacron, libserf, xfsprogs, man-db, libcroco, libgcrypt, grub2-tools-efi, ipcalc, libart_lgpl, dconf, xz-libs, dbus-glib, timedatex, perl-Package-Stash- XS, colord-libs, which, boost-chrono, libcap, sssd-nfs-idmap, libdb, passwd, libgcab1, python3-bcrypt, desktop-file-utils, libXdamage, libsmartcols, rpm-libs, nano, libthai, createrepo_c, fakeroot, python2-markupsafe, libproxy, libpipeline, python2-sqlalchemy, iproute, python2-gpg, findutils, popt, python2-xpyb, fakeroot-libs, libsss_idmap, gobject-introspection, libpwquality, lua, boost-atomic, fontconfig, patchutils, krb5-workstation, python3-hawkey, os-prober, jbigkit-libs, python3-dbus, info, iproute-tc, systemd-libs, libjpeg- turbo, cpio, libpng, rest, lz4-libs, util-linux, libXfont, patch, krb5-libs, sqlite-libs, net-tools, python3-librepo, pkgconf, json-c, python3-libselinux, libwayland-client, sed, libipt, libsss_autofs, perl-threads-shared, glib-networking, kmod, initscripts, device- mapper, python2-librepo, libXtst, kpartx, xapian-core-libs, ghostscript-core, python3-pillow, sssd-client, GeoIP, hardlink, libcollection, libXrandr, doxygen, libsolv, libxkbcommon, perl- Unicode-UTF8, libzstd, nss-softokn, lasi, libXft, binutils, libattr, perl-Variable-Magic, gnupg2-smime, rpm, xorg-x11-server-utils, libssh2, syslinux, python3-libcomps, gnupg2, libXcursor, libverto, dracut, glib2-devel, cracklib, procps-ng, python3-lxml, ncurses, libdnf, python3-libs, graphite2, python3-kerberos, perl-version, appstream, perl-PathTools, libtdb, zlib, netpbm, libselinux, libassuan, python3-gpg, libxml2, expat, python3-setools, perl- interpreter, chkconfig, libargon2, libcurl, make, hostname, coreutils, libcap-ng, libsoup, pam, libgomp, python2-cffi, pinentry, fuse-sshfs, fuse, perl-Net-SSLeay, perl-Filter, librepo, lua-filesystem, audit, cups-libs, libappstream-glib, python2-coverage, gdk-pixbuf2-modules, at-spi2-atk, libsepol, gzip, libtevent, nss-pem, vim-common, lzo, less, libfdisk, tcl, rpm-build-libs, libnghttp2, python2-lxml, openssl-libs, gobject-introspection-devel, boost-system, libpcap, subversion, docker-rhel-push-plugin, systemtap-runtime, gmp, perl- Unicode-Normalize, perl-Socket, apr-util, polkit-pkla-compat, pcre2, python3, python2, cyrus-sasl-lib, gpm-libs, nspr, fuse-libs, python3 -gobject-base, perl-TermReadKey, libpng-devel, python3-PyYAML, libXfixes, shared-mime-info, libblkid, libsigsegv, json-glib, libsss_sudo, libfontenc, boost-thread, rsync, sssd-common, glibc, btrfs-progs, shadow-utils, perl-IO, bind99-libs, libcgroup, perl- Params-Util, libXaw, libXau, fipscheck, libXinerama, wget, kmod-libs, libtommath, elfutils-libs, perl-MIME-Base64, acl, libmount, libkadm5, libgusb, glib2, libtiff, ImageMagick-libs, python3-libsemanage, libstdc++, libtool-ltdl, libmnl, nss, libXxf86vm, pcre, git, cronie, ima-evm-utils, tcp_wrappers-libs, systemd-pam, git-core, python2 -gobject-base, perl-Storable, perl-Digest-MD5, grub2-tools-extra, libmpc, openssh-server, libXi, dyninst, openjpeg2, libXt, libXext, mcpp, python2-hawkey, perl-Sort-Key, nss-util, hunspell, libsemanage, libXrender, systemd-container, libcomps, systemd-udev, file, curl, nettle, bzip2, python2-pillow, libXmu, gettext, elfutils-libelf, nss- softokn-freebl, fipscheck-lib, jasper-libs, python2-pycurl, libutempter, device-mapper-libs, libmetalink, libffi, readline, pcre- utf32, ustr, diffutils, cryptopp, e2fsprogs, chrony, grub2-tools- minimal, libdhash, cpp, libXpm, libksba, hello, mpfr), /usr/lib /.build-id/13(systemd, p11-kit-trust, perl-interpreter, nspr, ImageMagick-libs, btrfs-progs, perl-Params-Validate, libxcb, util- linux, rpm) [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [X]: 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. [X]: 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. [X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files. [!]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm extractpdfmark-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm extractpdfmark-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc28.src.rpm extractpdfmark.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib extractpdfmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation extractpdfmark.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: extractpdfmark-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm extractpdfmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory extractpdfmark.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> extractpdfmark.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib extractpdfmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> extractpdfmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog extractpdfmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> extractpdfmark-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- extractpdfmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpoppler.so.72()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) extractpdfmark-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): extractpdfmark-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- extractpdfmark: extractpdfmark extractpdfmark(x86-64) extractpdfmark-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) extractpdfmark-debuginfo extractpdfmark-debuginfo(x86-64) extractpdfmark-debugsource: extractpdfmark-debugsource extractpdfmark-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/releases/download/v1.0.2/extractpdfmark-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63f3ababd5b1081ef92ff7a417597302327c1db3902cdb9827fade147558e6db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63f3ababd5b1081ef92ff7a417597302327c1db3902cdb9827fade147558e6db (In reply to William Moreno from comment #4) > Hello > > Advancing with this review in fedora we do not need: > > rm -rf %{buildroot} > > And the changelog is missing the - %{version}.%{release} information. Thanks William, I've made the changes requested, pushed to Pagure repo and made a new build here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/build/702296/ I'll check Omar's review in the next days > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I don't see why, according to build.log it is fine. > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. There are no bundled libs as I can see. About the problem with duplicate COPYING: a simple rm will be easier to maintain, moreover COPYING is not the only packaging problem, try to rpmbuild for EPEL7. If you prefer to maintain a patch then look how other distributions solved the problem - Debian already uses such patch: https://sources.debian.org/patches/extractpdfmark/1.0.2-1/0002-Exclude-some-docs-from-install.patch/ %install %make_install rm -f %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}/COPYING mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir} (In reply to marcindulak from comment #8) > mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir} Where those aren't equal, the correct solution is to pass "--docdir=%{_pkgdocdir}" to configure. That should work as Autoconf is used. (In reply to Björn Persson from comment #9) > (In reply to marcindulak from comment #8) > > mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir} > > Where those aren't equal, the correct solution is to pass > "--docdir=%{_pkgdocdir}" to configure. That should work as Autoconf is used. As: %configure --docdir=%{_pkgdocdir} and not as ./configure --docdir=%{_pkgdocdir} as I've tried initially. (In reply to Federico Bruni from comment #6) > (In reply to William Moreno from comment #4) > > Hello > > > > Advancing with this review in fedora we do not need: > > > > rm -rf %{buildroot} > > > > And the changelog is missing the - %{version}.%{release} information. > > Thanks William, I've made the changes requested, pushed to Pagure repo and > made a new build here: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/build/ > 702296/ > > I'll check Omar's review in the next days Hello Federico I have seen a real interest in you to become a packager, please post the last version of your spec file and source rpm. Hello William I've made a new build in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/build/709990/ I think I will do a new release (1.0.2-2) as soon as this request passes the review. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00709990-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00709990-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-1.fc28.src.rpm Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Is common in fedora spec to split requires and build requires in a line per package, this make simple to know when a dependency is added or dropped loking at the diff of a commit. ===== MUST items ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [-]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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. Requires -------- extractpdfmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpoppler.so.72()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) extractpdfmark-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): extractpdfmark-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- extractpdfmark: extractpdfmark extractpdfmark(x86-64) extractpdfmark-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) extractpdfmark-debuginfo extractpdfmark-debuginfo(x86-64) extractpdfmark-debugsource: extractpdfmark-debugsource extractpdfmark-debugsource(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/releases/download/v1.0.2/extractpdfmark-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 63f3ababd5b1081ef92ff7a417597302327c1db3902cdb9827fade147558e6db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63f3ababd5b1081ef92ff7a417597302327c1db3902cdb9827fade147558e6db ping Sorry for the delay, I was away for a business trip. I've just committed these changes to the spec file: ``` $ git diff diff --git a/extractpdfmark.spec b/extractpdfmark.spec index a5d8f42..d75197c 100644 --- a/extractpdfmark.spec +++ b/extractpdfmark.spec @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ License: GPLv3+ URL: https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/ Source0: https://github.com/trueroad/extractpdfmark/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -BuildRequires: automake gettext-devel poppler-devel gcc-c++ +BuildRequires: automake +BuildRequires: gettext-devel +BuildRequires: poppler-devel %description When you create a PDF document using something like a TeX system you may include ``` Please post the updated spec and src.rpm in the form: Spec URL: SRPM URL: Also note that as per this F29 change [0] gcc-c++ will need to be aded to every spec that need it, but I will no request a new update os the spec, you have done a great work adressing the issues in the review and looking for help in the mailing list, also the package looks good so just update the links in the mentiones form for a final check and I think we are done with this review. 0: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00719190-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00719190-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-2.fc28.src.rpm I am fine with this package, and good work by the packager. I have aproved this package and added to the packager group in FAS, congrats. Now, as an extra useful step try to make the spec to build on EPEL7 (see one of my comments above) and maintain the package also in EPEL7. (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/extractpdfmark marcindulak, I've seen the problem when building for EPEL7. I'll try to fix it as soon as I have some spare time for it. (In reply to Federico Bruni from comment #18) > Spec URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/ > fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00719190-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark.spec > > SRPM URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/ > fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00719190-extractpdfmark/extractpdfmark-1.0.2-2.fc28. > src.rpm Federico any update here? I do not see any build of this package yet. William, sorry for disappearing. I've been too busy lately. I'll try to work on this next week. There was a misunderstanding, as I do not have a clear understanding of how the process goes. In March initially I thought that I didn't have anything left to do. Then I did not see any package in F28 and I realized that something was missing. I'll read this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system and launch the build early next week. If so please close this bug and paste a link to the complete build. I think I got it. Let me know if there's anything wrong. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28004064 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=26442 |