|Summary:||Review Request: lttv - Linux Trace Toolkit Viewer|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||i, martin.gieseking, notting, package-review, pahan|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2013-04-30 21:37:58 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Yannick Brosseau 2011-06-29 19:07:23 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttv.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttv-0.12.38-1.src.rpm Description: LTTV is a modular trace viewer. It can perform analysis on traces of a Linux kernel instrumented with LTTng and UST.
Comment 1 Yannick Brosseau 2011-06-29 20:51:05 UTC
Comment 2 Martin Gieseking 2011-08-09 19:02:11 UTC
Hi Yannik, here are a few quick notes on your spec: - use %global rather than %define, also see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - in order to increase legibility, please indent (line up) the text of the header fields (Summary, Name, Version, etc.) - also list all BuildRequires separately - You can drop the BuildRoot field. It's still required for EPEL < 6, though. If you want to build the package for the old EPEL distros, you have to add a %clean section and rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines - Replace LGPL v2.1 with LGPLv2, and GPL v2 with GPLv2. See here for a list of valid license abbreviations: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main - devel packages must require the corresponding base/lib package with a fully versioned dependency: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - add a non-empty %description to the devel package - The %description lines must not exceed 80 chars per line. Just split them appropriately. - Drop RPM_OPT_FLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fstack-protector-all" from the make statement as it has no effect. - as the base package seems to provide a GUI application, you must provide a .desktop file and install it properly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Desktop_files - replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) or remove it completely. It's still required if you plan to maintain the package for EPEL 4 as well. - add AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, and README to the base package (with %doc).
Comment 3 Yannick Brosseau 2011-08-12 19:38:35 UTC
Hi Martin, Thanks for the feedback. I'm preparing an updated package based on your comments Just one question. > - add a non-empty %description to the devel package Do you mean to add a more detailed description to devel packages? Because all the package seem to have a description.
Comment 4 Martin Gieseking 2011-08-12 20:03:54 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > > - add a non-empty %description to the devel package > > Do you mean to add a more detailed description to devel packages? Because all > the package seem to have a description. Yes, sorry. I was probably too tired and was fooled by my brain when I had a look at your package. The description texts are fine. Just ignore that comment. ;)
Comment 5 Yannick Brosseau 2011-09-01 18:57:59 UTC
New SRPMS and SPEC available following Martin comments http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/lttv-0.12.38-2.fc15.src.rpm http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/lttv.spec
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2013-04-30 18:49:58 UTC
I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. Package fails to build for me. Here is a scratch build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5318819 A build in f18 fails for me in the same manner.
Comment 7 Yannick Brosseau 2013-04-30 19:01:09 UTC
This old version is not supported anymore upstream. A completely reworked version is being worked on. Is it best to close this one and recreate a new one when a new version is available upstream (probably in a few months) ?
Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2013-04-30 21:37:58 UTC
No point in having a ticket open when there's nothing to review, so I'll go ahead and close this.