Bug 746754
Summary: | Review request: pdfcrack - A Password Recovery Tool for PDF-files. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | pjp <pj.pandit> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | high | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | gregor, gwync, hobbes1069, metherid, notting, package-review, rc040203 | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened | ||||
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | hobbes1069:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | All | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | pdfcrack-0.14-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2014-09-19 10:11:30 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
pjp
2011-10-17 17:14:01 UTC
You don't need the following anymore: --- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Groups is optional and can be remove as well. License is GPLv2+ and not GPLv2. Read the license header in the source files for confirmation. You can omit the license information in the description. Follow the packaging guidelines for Sourceforge url. Use name and version macros. Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-2.fc14.src.rpm Koji build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3437674 I think the removal of the deprecated rpm tags was a mistake because your package should work on EPEL, too (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL) please format the bindir macro in %files and use name macro also you should include changelog in %doc No. There is no requirement that packages should work on EPEL and EPEL spec can be different from the Fedora spec. Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-3.fc14.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3443949 fine, but you forgot a name macro in %install also rpmlint is complaining: rpmlint pdfcrack-debuginfo-0.11-2.fc17.i686.rpm pdfcrack-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I'm confused...any ideas? Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-4.fc14.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3446368 I'm not sure about the empty-debuginfo package though. Can post to devel list if you cant figure out why. Fix that debuginfo issue and I can approve. Please see: SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-5.fc14.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3451564 rpmlint pdfcrack-debuginfo-0.11-5.fc17.i686.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ thumbs up ;-) but I can't approve you sry Ok, a couple of updates. 1. The 'GNU/Linux (other POSIX-compatible systems should work too)' from the description should probably be removed as we don't care about other POSIX systems in this case, the package is only expected to work in Fedora. 2. Building with the current spec does not use the required CFLAGS. I fixed that like this, but a patch would be better. %prep %setup -q %patch0 -p1 # Update Makefile to use required CFLAGS sed -i 's/CFLAGS=/CFLAGS+=/g' Makefile %build CFLAGS='%{optflags}' export CFLAGS make %{?_smp_mflags} Get those fixed and I'll review it for you. I assume since the flag is not set that you do not need a sponsor, correct? Richard You don't have to patch. Simply overriding CFLAGS from the environment should work here. something similar to make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" Is overriding a good idea? I'm sure it's ok most of the time, but what if there's existing flags that are important to keep? (In reply to comment #13) > Is overriding a good idea? In general, it's basically a matter of taste. > I'm sure it's ok most of the time, but what if > there's existing flags that are important to keep? In general, you are right. One has to be careful about doing so (Properly written Makefiles take this into consideration), but in this (trivial) case, the CFLAGS inside of the Makefile can be neglected. Actually this package is such kind of trivial and its Makefile lacking so much, it could be compiled and build with a single compiler call without any Makefile. I'll have to defer to you on the last part. I'm barely a Python programmer and not a C programmer so I usually play it safe and let the Makefile put it's flags on last. I assume that where flags conflict(such as -O2 for RPM_OPT_FLAGS and -O3 in the makefile), the last flag wins... Please see SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-6.fc14.src.rpm Koji build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3468841 Thank you. FYI your spec link hasn't been update yet but the SRPM worked fine, but it's a moot point because... I found a Ubuntu man page I'll attach to this bug. I'm not sure if you've dealt with man pages so I'll give you the short version: Add it as a source: Source1: pdfcrack.1 Install it to the right location: mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/man1 install -pm0644 %{SOURCE1} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/man1/ Include in %files %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1 There's no need to gzip it as rpmbuild will take care of that for you. Richard Created attachment 530717 [details]
Ubuntu man page (modified)
Please see SPEC: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack.spec SRPM: http://pjp.dgplug.org/tools/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc14.src.rpm Koji build -> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3469691 +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (00bdb4c44dd209f493fc02d38c1a6377) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F15 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 and i686 [+] package functions as described: Tested basic usage. [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts *** APPROVED *** New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pdfcrack Short Description: A password recovery tool for PDF files. Owners: pjp Branches: f14 f15 fl6 Names in summary and SCM request do not match, please correct. Also, branch should be f16, not fl6. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: PDFCrack Short Description: A password recovery tool for PDF files. Owners: pjp Branches: f14 f15 f16 Git done (by process-git-requests). Hi, I tried to import the pdfcrack SRPM to the new git repository, but it fails with the following message === $ fedpkg -v import /tmp/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc14.src.rpm Running: rpm -qp --qf %{NAME} /tmp/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc14.src.rpm Running: rpm -qpl /tmp/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc14.src.rpm Creating module object from /home/pjp/src/fedora/PDFCrack Running: rpm -q --qf %{NAME} --specfile /home/pjp/src/fedora/PDFCrack/pdfcrack.spec Uploading: 00bdb4c44dd209f493fc02d38c1a6377 pdfcrack-0.11.tar.gz Could not import srpm: Error checking for pdfcrack-0.11.tar.gz at: https://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi === It seems that, this is caused by the mismatching package name and git repository name. I've changed the package name in the summary of this bug from: PDFCrack to pdfcrack. Could someone please rename the git repository to pdfcrack.git ? Thank you. You'll have to reset the cvs flag if you want them to do anything but be sure you're not hitting this issue instead: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-15612 The SRPM name probably needs to match the git repo name but I don't believe that's absolutely required of the source archive. Richard New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pdfcrack Short Description: A password recovery tool for PDF files. Owners: pjp Branches: f14 f15 f16 FYI, since the package has already been setup once you may need to use the "change" format instead of the "new package" format[1], but Jon will know for sure. Richard [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages Git done (by process-git-requests). Not sure what happened but it just wasn't there at all. It is now, sans f14 branch since we're not doing new f14 branches. pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc15 pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc16 pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. pdfcrack-0.11-7.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: pdfcrack New Branches: el5 el6 epel7 Owners: pjp Git done (by process-git-requests). pdfcrack-0.13-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el6 pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc19 pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-1.fc20 pdfcrack-0.13-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.13-2.el5 Package pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-2334/pdfcrack-0.13-1.el7 then log in and leave karma (feedback). pdfcrack-0.14-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.el5 pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc20 pdfcrack-0.14-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.el6 pdfcrack-0.14-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.el7 pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc21 pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc19 pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfcrack-0.14-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfcrack-0.14-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfcrack-0.14-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. pdfcrack-0.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |