Bug 603233

The spec file is fine, only some suggestions:
1.BuildRequires:  libstdc++-devel is not needed in mock
2.man3 should be moved to -devel subpackage.
3.Group:          Development/Libraries should be moved to -devel subpackage

The group for main package is System Environment/Libraries

Thanks for looking into this so fast :)

(In reply to comment #1)
> The spec file is fine, only some suggestions:
> 1.BuildRequires:  libstdc++-devel is not needed in mock

I was unsure, so I left this in, but deleted now.

> 2.man3 should be moved to -devel subpackage.

Done.

> 3.Group:          Development/Libraries should be moved to -devel subpackage
> 
> The group for main package is System Environment/Libraries    

Right, done.


rpmlint is now completely clean:
$ rpmlint ./zeromq-2.0.7-2.fc13.src.rpm ./x86_64/zeromq-*
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq.spec
SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq-2.0.7-2.fc13.src.rpm

*** Bug 459874 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Sorry, Peter, didn't notice your bug...

Are you interested in comaintaining?

Some suggestions:

1.It seems some man7 files should be moved to -devel subpackage, it may need further clarification.

From zero.spec in the tarball, those files are in the -devel subpackage:

%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_cpp.7.gz
%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_epgm.7.gz
%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_inproc.7.gz
%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_ipc.7.gz
%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_pgm.7.gz
%{_mandir}/man7/zmq_tcp.7.gz

From debian package, those files are in the -dev subpackage:
/usr/share/man/man7/zmq_cpp.7.gz

2.I suggest to move {_bindir}/* and %{_mandir}/man1/* to -utils subpackages as Peter's spec in Bug 459874, many packages only depend on the shlib.

(In reply to comment #5)
> 2.I suggest to move {_bindir}/* and %{_mandir}/man1/* to -utils subpackages as
> Peter's spec in Bug 459874, many packages only depend on the shlib.    

Done.

To the splitting of man pages:
e.g. zmq_inproc refers to zmq_bind, which was not in the same package. That doesn't make much sence so me, so I moved any man page to the devel package.

This way the main package is as small as possible and everyone, who is interessted in getting information would call 'man zmq'. But zmq.7.gz talks about how to include <zmq.h> and so on, which is only usefull, when having the -devel package around...

I don't see another reason for keeping a man page at all in the main package.
You?

Another issue:
I'm unsure about the group of -utils. Development/Tools would be the best, isn't it? (can't find Peter's spec file anymore)

$ rpmlint ./zeromq-2.0.7-3.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/zeromq-*
zeromq-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zmq -> Zama, zoom, Zarqa
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq.spec
SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq-2.0.7-3.fc13.src.rpm

Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i686).
koji Build =>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2345975
+ rpmlint output for SRPM and for RPM.
zeromq-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zmq -> Zama, zoom, Zarqa
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ source files match upstream url (sha1sum)
cfe061d06431eccbbc95df2d257d07447c7f4cce  zeromq-2.0.7.tar.gz
cfe061d06431eccbbc95df2d257d07447c7f4cce  zeromq-2.0.7.tar.gz.srpm

+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present which is not needed now.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ libzmq.pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ ldconfig scriptlets present.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ Package zeromq-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Provides: libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libzmq.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Package zeromq-devel-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Provides: pkgconfig(libzmq) = 2.0.7
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libzmq.so.0()(64bit)
+ Package zeromq-utils-2.0.7-3.fc14.x86_64 =>
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libzmq.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ Not a GUI application



Suggestions
1) If package is needed only for F-13 and above then please follow
  a) buildroot should be removed
  b) %clean not needed
  c) cleaning of buildroot at start of %install also not needed

2) Please add some empty line between %package and %description sections for -devel and -utils subpackages 

3) %description for -devel packages are generally generic. See /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-lib.spec
So please replace existing %description text with following

The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for 
developing applications that use %{name}.

4) %description for -utils should be simple like
 Utility files for libzmq package
or
This package contains ZeroMQ related utility files,
e.g. zmq_forwarder, zmq_streamer and zmq_queue.

5) For me working Source URL is http://zeromq.wdfiles.com/local--files/area:download/zeromq-%{version}.tar.gz

Please fix these before you go for cvs import.


APPROVED.

and yes there exists -devel and -utils subpackages, missed to modify my review template above

Thanks for the review.

(In reply to comment #7)
> Suggestions
> 1) If package is needed only for F-13 and above then please follow
>   a) buildroot should be removed
Done
>   b) %clean not needed
Not done.
>   c) cleaning of buildroot at start of %install also not needed
Done

This is needed for F-13+ and EL-6+, so %clean needs to stay for now:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
 
> 2) Please add some empty line between %package and %description sections for
> -devel and -utils subpackages 
Done
> 
> 3) %description for -devel packages are generally generic. See
> /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-lib.spec
> So please replace existing %description text with following
> 
> The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for 
> developing applications that use %{name}.
Done
> 
> 4) %description for -utils should be simple like
>  Utility files for libzmq package
> or
> This package contains ZeroMQ related utility files,
> e.g. zmq_forwarder, zmq_streamer and zmq_queue.
Done
> 
> 5) For me working Source URL is
> http://zeromq.wdfiles.com/local--files/area:download/zeromq-%{version}.tar.gz

What's wrong with:
http://www.zeromq.org/local--files/area:download/zeromq-%{version}.tar.gz ?

That url is used at: http://www.zeromq.org/area:download
and is working with spectool.

Wget changes my url to yours, when downloading, but what happends, when they change the redirect somehow, e.g. to zeromp.wdfiles2.com?
I'd like to leave my url there...

Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq.spec
SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/zeromq-2.0.7-4.fc13.src.rpm

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: zeromq
Short Description: Software library for fast, message-based applications
Owners: tomspur
Branches: F-13 EL-6

If I understood those guidelines correctly then we don't need %clean in EPEL6 and F12+ as its recent changes to rpm package. http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.8.0#Packagebuilding

for EPEL see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag

Also, I can see Buildroot tag is present in updated spec file but changelog entry added as 
- remove buildroot

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

(In reply to comment #11)
> If I understood those guidelines correctly then we don't need %clean in EPEL6
> and F12+ as its recent changes to rpm package.
> http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.8.0#Packagebuilding
> 
> for EPEL see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#BuildRoot_tag
> 
> Also, I can see Buildroot tag is present in updated spec file but changelog
> entry added as 
> - remove buildroot    

Thanks for double check.

I've commited it without %clean and without buildroot to try out, it if builts in EL-6 (was successful):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2349436

Link to the commited file:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/zeromq/zeromq.spec?view=markup

zeromq-2.0.7-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zeromq-2.0.7-4.fc13

zeromq-2.0.7-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: zeromq
New Branches: el5
Owners: tomspur

Git done (by process-git-requests).