Bug 990627

Package is rpmlint clean, except for two warning which I think are OK:
- javadocs is marked as misspelt, but other javadoc packages use this spelling
- configure-without-libdir-spec, but this is not a real configure script, but a custom thing and the proper paths *are* given to it, with differently named parameters.

Hello,

comments on SPEC 

as far as i can judge this is EPEL6 compliant, and looks semantic clean enough though i have some doubts if macros is allowed to be used along with static links here 

>cp -r javadoc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} 

I will leave this with others to judge.


VM

(In reply to Veaceslav Mindru from comment #2)
Thank you for the quick review.

> i have some doubts if macros is allowed to be used along with
> static links here 
Hm, there are no links, I think.

I took this part verbatim from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Specfile_Template, so it's probably fine.

> >cp -r javadoc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} 
> 
> I will leave this with others to judge.

FC 20 koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5693733

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not completely silent, but its messages are harmless can be ignored:

work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/jblas-*
jblas.src:52: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

^^^ I advise you to use %configure instead of ./configure

jblas-javadoc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (New BSD, no advertising, 3 clause).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

work ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum jblas-1.2.3.tar.gz*
3061fcae0c9b2d2e5ecc1e79ca9af7f05502c4f3dd4fd9adc98bd9df1bd720fb  jblas-1.2.3.tar.gz
3061fcae0c9b2d2e5ecc1e79ca9af7f05502c4f3dd4fd9adc98bd9df1bd720fb  jblas-1.2.3.tar.gz.1
work ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unowned directory - /usr/lib64/jblas/ . Please either add this 

%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/

to the %files section, or just use

%{_libdir}/%{name}

instead of more narrowed

%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib%{name}.so 


+ The package doesn't list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
0 No static libraries.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please fix the only remaining issue with unowned directory before uploading to Fedora Git. This package is


APPROVED.

Unblocking FE-NEEDSPONSOR - I've just sponsored  Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek.

(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5)
Thank you for the review!

> REVIEW:
> work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/jblas-*
> jblas.src:52: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
> 
> ^^^ I advise you to use %configure instead of ./configure
I think that %configure will add additional options, which are not supported by this ./configure, which is a custom script here, not a real standard one.
I think it should stay the way it is.

> - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unowned directory -
> /usr/lib64/jblas/ . Please either add this 
Fixed.

> APPROVED.

Updated spec: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas.spec
Updated srpm: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas-1.2.3-2.fc19.src.rpm
koji f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5779036
koji f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5779029

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
> (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5)
> Thank you for the review!
> 
> > REVIEW:
> > work ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/jblas-*
> > jblas.src:52: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
> > 
> > ^^^ I advise you to use %configure instead of ./configure
> I think that %configure will add additional options, which are not supported
> by this ./configure, which is a custom script here, not a real standard one.
> I think it should stay the way it is.
> 
> > - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unowned directory -
> > /usr/lib64/jblas/ . Please either add this 
> Fixed.
> 
> > APPROVED.
> 
> Updated spec: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas.spec
> Updated srpm: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/jblas-1.2.3-2.fc19.src.rpm
> koji f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5779036
> koji f20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5779029

Ok, good. Proceed with the following:

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jblas
Short Description: Java bindings for BLAS
Owners: zbyszek
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC: peter java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jblas-1.2.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jblas-1.2.3-2.fc19

jblas-1.2.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jblas-1.2.3-2.fc18

jblas-1.2.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

jblas-1.2.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

jblas-1.2.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.