Bug 1890891

 - Should not be needed

# Force out of source build
%global __cmake_in_source_build 0

 - Missing isa for arch:


%package devel
Summary: Development files for the Ptex library
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}

 - This doesn't look right: the .so file should go in the devel package and you should have a versioned so file in the main package. IF upstream doesn't provide a versioned so file you should ask them to do so. If they refuse, you should version it downstream.

%files
%doc src/doc/README 
%license src/doc/License.txt
%{_bindir}/ptxinfo
%{_libdir}/*so

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #1)
>  - Should not be needed
> 
> # Force out of source build
> %global __cmake_in_source_build 0
> 
>  - Missing isa for arch:
> 
Removed.

 
> %package devel
> Summary: Development files for the Ptex library
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}
> 

Fixed

>  - This doesn't look right: the .so file should go in the devel package and
> you should have a versioned so file in the main package. IF upstream doesn't
> provide a versioned so file you should ask them to do so. If they refuse,
> you should version it downstream.
> 
> %files
> %doc src/doc/README 
> %license src/doc/License.txt
> %{_bindir}/ptxinfo
> %{_libdir}/*so

%{_libdir}/*so is moved to devel package. Unfortunately the packaging guideline failed to provide the step to set up a versioned .so files.
Meanwhile, the request is filed upstream https://github.com/wdas/ptex/issues/54

Updated
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01748610-ptex/ptex.spec
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01748610-ptex/ptex-2.3.2-2.fc34.src.rpm

> Unfortunately the packaging guideline failed to provide the step to set up a versioned .so files.

No, you should check the Cmake help. You need to pass "SOVERSION x.x.x" in the src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt somewhere

set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME Ptex SOVERSION x.x.x)


Patch:

# 0001-set-SOVERSION.patch
diff -up ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt.orig ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt
--- ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt.orig	2019-03-08 18:39:47.000000000 +0100
+++ ptex-2.3.2/src/ptex/CMakeLists.txt	2020-11-07 11:12:18.517114444 +0100
@@ -32,7 +32,10 @@ endif()
 
 if(PTEX_BUILD_SHARED_LIBS)
     add_library(Ptex_dynamic SHARED ${SRCS})
-    set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME Ptex)
+    set_target_properties(Ptex_dynamic
+      PROPERTIES
+          OUTPUT_NAME Ptex
+           SOVERSION ${PTEX_MAJOR_VERSION}.${PTEX_MINOR_VERSION})
     target_include_directories(Ptex_dynamic
         PUBLIC
             $<INSTALL_INTERFACE:${CMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR}>
===============================================================

Patch0:         0001-set-SOVERSION.patch

[…]

%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}


 - Doc subpackage should be noarch


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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Unknown or generated". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ptex/review-
     ptex/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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ptex-
     devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8960000 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ptex-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          ptex-devel-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          ptex-doc-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          ptex-debuginfo-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          ptex-debugsource-2.3.2-2.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          ptex-2.3.2-2.fc34.src.rpm
ptex.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptxinfo
ptex-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ptex.src:46: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 46)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Thanks for the patch which is applied.
Doc subpackage is no arch.

Updated
SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01749766-ptex/ptex.spec
SPRM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/blender-egl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01749766-ptex/ptex-2.3.2-3.fc34.src.rpm

Package approved.

Thank you!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ptex