Bug 885703

Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-1/glite-lbjp-common-log.spec
SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-1/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-1.fc20.src.rpm
Koji build (f20): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5570974

New upstream release and packaging fixes (based on reviews of related packages).

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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]: %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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

It was complying at the time the package was submitted. However, there was
a change to the guidelines introduced recently banning arch specific
BuildRequires:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires_and_.25.7B_isa.7D

Personally I consider this guideline change unfortunate and believe it
to cause more problems than it solves. I have filed a request to FPC
asking them to reconsider this change which so far has been ignored.
But as long as it is still there I see no other choice than to follow
it, unfortunately.

The package hardcodes the use of a versioned documentation directory:

%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}

In another recent guideline change, an unversioned documentation directory

%{_docdir}/%{name}

must be used for Fedora 20 and later.

The %{_pkgdocdir} macro is defined on Fedora 20 and later to point to
the unversioned directory. With the following line this macro is
declared to the versioned directory if it is undefined:

%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}

If documentation is then installed in %{_pkgdocdir} it will end up in
the right place both on F19- (versioned) and F20+ (unversioned).

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).

===== 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          glite-lbjp-common-log-devel-1.3.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
glite-lbjp-common-log-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint glite-lbjp-common-log-devel glite-lbjp-common-log
glite-lbjp-common-log-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
glite-lbjp-common-log-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glite-lbjp-common-log(x86-64)
    libglite_lbu_log.so.1()(64bit)

glite-lbjp-common-log (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    config(glite-lbjp-common-log)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liblog4c.so.3()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
glite-lbjp-common-log-devel:
    glite-lbjp-common-log-devel
    glite-lbjp-common-log-devel(x86-64)

glite-lbjp-common-log:
    config(glite-lbjp-common-log)
    glite-lbjp-common-log
    glite-lbjp-common-log(x86-64)
    libglite_lbu_log.so.1()(64bit)



Source checksums
----------------
http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.lbjp-common.log/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ba5c90605c62541814d71b8aacb52df13c6b6876e9f2a4a8bd3a8bf0fe1e10b3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba5c90605c62541814d71b8aacb52df13c6b6876e9f2a4a8bd3a8bf0fe1e10b3


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 885703 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

--------------------------------------

Basically fine - only issues due to guideline changes that happened after the package review request was filed.

Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2/glite-lbjp-common-log.spec
SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc21.src.rpm

Thanks for the review. Updated package.

Package approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glite-lbjp-common-log
Short Description: gLite common logging formats for L&B and JP
Owners: valtri
Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc19

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc18

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.el6

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

glite-lbjp-common-log-1.3.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.