Spec URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/libre/raw/review/libre.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/libre/raw/review/libre-0.4.4-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: Libre is a portable and generic library for real-time communications with async IO support and a complete SIP stack with support for SDP, RTP/RTCP, STUN/TURN/ICE, BFCP and DNS Client. Fedora Account System Username: larsks This package is a dependency for baresip, a barebones SIP client that I would like to get packaged for Fedora.
This is the first time I'm submitting a package to Fedora so I will need a sponsor. This SRPM has built successfully in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6001565
Informal review: SRPM url is dead I snatched the SRPM from koji. $ rpmlint libre-0.4.4-3.fc19.src.rpm libre.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint libre-0.4.4-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.4-1 ['0.4.4-3.fc19', '0.4.4-3'] libre.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libre.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. From build.log + cd re-0.4.4 + make -j5 LIBDIR=/usr/lib64 You don't seem to use the correct build flags. Have a look at the %{optflags} macro.
One more comment. The %{_datadir}/re directory isn't owned by the package.
Please keep "Spec URL" and "SRPM URL" in sync: Spec URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/libre/raw/review/libre.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/larsks-packages/libre/raw/review/libre-0.4.4-5.fc19.src.rpm The %changelog ought to sum up all changes to the spec file. Doing that also during the review process is a good exercise. It can happen that a reviewer doesn't insist on doing that, however. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers > + cd re-0.4.4 > + make -j3 LIBDIR=/usr/lib64 > CC build-x86_64/sip/addr.o > CC build-x86_64/sip/auth.o > ... In this build output, one cannot see what compiler/linker flags are used. The Makefile runs the commands silently with '@' prefix notation. Patching that out would be highly recommended, so the build.log doesn't hide these details and could be examined any time for current and old builds, too (e.g. as long as it's stored in koji).
Following is a package review guided/helped by fedora-review. Please pay the most attention to the following items: * Differences between spec file in URL and in the SRPM file * rpmlint warns about versions mismatches (with and without dist) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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. Comment: BSD [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cleber/1013363-libre/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Comment: COPYING [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libre-0.4.4-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm libre-devel-0.4.4-5.fc19.x86_64.rpm libre-0.4.4-5.fc19.src.rpm libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.4-1 ['0.4.4-5.fc19', '0.4.4-5'] libre-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libre.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libre-devel libre libre-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync libre.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment libre.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.4-1 ['0.4.4-5.fc19', '0.4.4-5'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libre-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libre(x86-64) libre.so.0.4.4()(64bit) libre (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libre-devel: libre-devel libre-devel(x86-64) libre: libre libre(x86-64) libre.so.0.4.4()(64bit) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/cleber/1013363-libre/srpm/libre.spec 2013-11-21 01:59:13.643187100 -0300 +++ /home/cleber/1013363-libre/srpm-unpacked/libre.spec 2013-09-29 22:18:34.000000000 -0300 @@ -64,9 +64,4 @@ %changelog -* Sun Sep 29 2013 Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars> 0.4.4-5 -- generate a versioned shared library -- removed static library from devel package -- ensure correct ownership of directories - * Fri Sep 27 2013 Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars> 0.4.4-1 - initial package Source checksums ---------------- http://www.creytiv.com/pub/re-0.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cedc399c2fc4420c5fd81acf9dc629dc7d1aeefab4265439a714fa8a68dc3cfd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cedc399c2fc4420c5fd81acf9dc629dc7d1aeefab4265439a714fa8a68dc3cfd Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1013363 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
I've abandoned this, since there was a long discussion on the list regarding the lack of versioned libraries, and I didn't feel like struggling with upstream to fix this issue on multiple libraries. If someone besides me is interested in this package I am happy to revisit.