Bug 815135

(In reply to comment #0)
> * The 'atf' package contains a long description, while all the subpackages
> contain a tiny description.  I think it'd be nice if all of these
> subdescriptions contained the generic description of ATF.  However, I'm not
> sure if that's desirable (standard practice), or if there is a way to do it
> without having to copy/paste the same text multiple times.
> 
There are some examples in the Haskell packaging template -- you can define a %global variable for the description text, and then use it in the subpackages:

http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=cabal2spec.git;a=blob;f=spectemplate-ghc-binlib.spec;h=e710d720f1a359e225b2def7270114094368d9bc;hb=HEAD

(will proceed with the review without waiting for this, though -- it's not urgent, and the example file is quite straightforward)

I've tested the generated against lutok, and atf-run works fine if libatf-c++-devel is installed when lutok is configured and built.

One change needs to be made to the packaging -- it's generally fine if subpackages do not have documentation, if they depend on the main package -- but in your case, since the libatf-* subpackages are not dependent on atf, some of them need to include at least the license text (COPYING). Basically any installable subset of atf needs to carry the license text.

Looks like adding the LICENSE text to libatf-c is sufficient since all the other subpackages depend on it eventually.

* TODO Review [90%]
  - [X] Names [2/2]
    - [X] Package name
    - [X] Spec name
  - [X] Package version [2/2]
	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
    - [X] Version number
	  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
    - [X] Release tag
	  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
	  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
  - [X] Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]]
  - [X] Source files match upstream
  $ sha256sum atf-0.15.tar.gz ../SOURCES/atf-0.15.tar.gz 
  0c7242a107c7e308feed8fac45a194a6f6c8d90283add576cfc3dab0fcd61b2b  atf-0.15.tar.gz
  0c7242a107c7e308feed8fac45a194a6f6c8d90283add576cfc3dab0fcd61b2b  ../SOURCES/atf-0.15.tar.gz

  - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No bundled libraries]]
  - [X] License [4/4]
    - [X] License is Fedora-approved
    - [X] No licensing conflict
    - [X] License field accurate
    - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream
  - [-] rpmlint [1/2]
    - [X] on src.rpm
      ✗ rpmlint ./atf-0.15-1.fc17.src.rpm 
      1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
    - [ ] on x86_64.rpm
      ✗ rpmlint ~/Downloads/*atf*.rpm
      atf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/atf-config
      libatf-c.x86_64: W: no-documentation
      libatf-c++.x86_64: W: no-documentation
      8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
      
      Note: since libatf-c and libatf-c++ do not require the base package,
      you must at least include the COPYING file as documentation

  - [X] Language & locale [2/2]
    - [X] Spec in US English
    - [X] Spec legible
  - [X] Build [3/3]
    - [X] Koji results
      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4038205
    - [X] BRs complete
    - [X] Directory ownership
  - [X] Spec inspection [8/8]
    - [X] ldconfig for libraries
    - [X] No duplicate files
    - [X] File permissions
    - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8
    - [X] no BuildRoot ([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if targeting RHEL5]])
    - [X] Macro usage consistent
    - [X] Documentation [1/1]
      - [X] %doc files are non-essential
    - [X] Development [4/4]
      - [X] Headers in -devel
      - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel
      - [X] -devel, -static requires main
      - [X] No .la

Thanks for the review.

I have uploaded a new copy of the spec and srpm files to the same location.  The output of rpmlint on all the files is now:

atf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kyua.googlecode.com/files/atf-0.15.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
atf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kyua.googlecode.com/files/atf-0.15.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
atf.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/atf-config
9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Things I have changed:

- Added the common_description variable.  It's a pity that the first line of the text has to be listed along the %define directive, as that pushes the line over the 80 column boundary.  Putting a \ in the first line causes a spurious blank line to appear at the beginning of the descriptions, which I find ugly.

- Added missing %defattr sections.

- Added %doc lines to libatf-c, libatf-c++ and libatf-sh.  I know you mentioned that because everything depends on libatf-c, only libatf-c had to include these.  However, these cross-dependencies among the libatf-* packages are a weird artifact, and the resulting binary packages should not rely on them.

Koji results: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4043303

As (In reply to comment #3)
> - Added the common_description variable.  It's a pity that the first line of
> the text has to be listed along the %define directive, as that pushes the line
> over the 80 column boundary.  Putting a \ in the first line causes a spurious
> blank line to appear at the beginning of the descriptions, which I find ugly.
> 
That's the same problem with Haskell packages, don't worry about it.

> - Added missing %defattr sections.
Actually this is no longer necessary:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

RHEL 5 already has rpm 4.4, so unless you really want to target RHEL 4 as well, you only need defattr if you need some unusual permissions

> - Added %doc lines to libatf-c, libatf-c++ and libatf-sh.  I know you mentioned
> that because everything depends on libatf-c, only libatf-c had to include
> these.  However, these cross-dependencies among the libatf-* packages are a
> weird artifact, and the resulting binary packages should not rely on them.
> 
> Koji results: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4043303

Sounds good, I was only suggesting the bare minimum.

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: atf
Short Description: Automated Testing Framework
Owners: jmmv
Branches: f17
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Builds for rawhide and f17 have been requested. I think this can be closed now.

Thanks a lot for the review and the advice!

You're welcome! Don't forget to submit an update request -- F17 is branched so packages for it do not automatically enter the repo anymore.

atf-0.15-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/atf-0.15-1.fc17

atf-0.15-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: atf
New Branches: f18

Misformatted request, no owner specified.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: atf
New Branches: f18
Owners: jmmv

f18 branch already exists.