Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc.spec Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Linear (or Longitudinal) Timecode (LTC) is an encoding of timecode data as a Manchester-Biphase encoded audio signal. The audio signal is commonly recorded on a VTR track or other storage media. libltc provides functionality to encode and decode LTC from/to timecode, including SMPTE date support. NB: I'll keep the release number as 0.x during the review and will bump it to 1 during import after the review is finished.
Taken.
Please package 1.1.2.(https://github.com/x42/libltc/releases) Please remove Requires: pkgconfig in -devel subpkg. Then I will run again.
Hmm.. You should request upstream to provide 1.1.2 download if possible.
The spec "BuildRequires: doxygen" but the package doesn't build nor install the doxygen docs. (If you'd build them (make dox), you'd hit a bug in Fedora's doxygen, which uses non-multilib compliant html-footers. One work-around to this issue can be found in my gumbo-parser.spec in Fedora's git).
Help submmited: https://github.com/x42/libltc/issues/8
FYI https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Doxygen_footers Rather than wait for upstream to release a new tarball (if the author has in fact released it!), you could use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github if you think there is a benefit. Please don't use %epochs unless you have to.
Isn't the timestamp in footer issue fixed at Fedora since doxygen-1.8.1.1-2 (Jun 13 2012), which sets HTML_TIMESTAMP default to FALSE? Please confirm.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7) > Isn't the timestamp in footer issue fixed at Fedora since doxygen-1.8.1.1-2 > (Jun 13 2012), which sets HTML_TIMESTAMP default to FALSE? Please confirm. It wasn't fixed last week, when gumbo-parser was reviewed.
It is fixed, but gumbo-parser uses a 75 KB Doxyfile that overrides lots of settings, including the HTML_TIMESTAMP setting.
And libltc also does that. ;)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > Please package 1.1.2.(https://github.com/x42/libltc/releases) I've just pinged rgareus if there's a chance to get official (nice!) tarballs again, I'll probably reference the on-the-fly tarball even if that makes the package more complicated. > Please remove Requires: pkgconfig in -devel subpkg. Uhm why? I don't see a guideline prescribing that and so that %_libdir/pkgconfig doesn't go unowned the package has to either own it (only one precedent in F19 according to repoquery) or require pkgconfig which owns it officially (more than 100 devel packages on my machine alone). (In reply to Brendan Jones from comment #6) > FYI Thanks! > Please don't use %epochs unless you have to. It doesn't use an epoch, I've just prepped the dependency so it won't cease working if an epoch is added ever (yeah, bloody likely I know).
(In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #11) > Uhm why? I don't see a guideline prescribing that and so that > %_libdir/pkgconfig doesn't go unowned the package has to either own it (only > one precedent in F19 according to repoquery) or require pkgconfig which owns > it officially (more than 100 devel packages on my machine alone). Explicit Requires: pkgconfig is needed on <= el5, only, because on any other dist it will be picked-up correctly by Autorequires.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #12) > (In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #11) > > Uhm why? I don't see a guideline prescribing that and so that > > %_libdir/pkgconfig doesn't go unowned the package has to either own it (only > > one precedent in F19 according to repoquery) or require pkgconfig which owns > > it officially (more than 100 devel packages on my machine alone). > > Explicit Requires: pkgconfig is needed on <= el5, only, because on any other > dist it will be picked-up correctly by Autorequires. That doesn't seem to be the case, here's the dependencies of the devel subpackage if built without explicitly requiring pkgconfig: nils@gibraltar:~/rpmbuild> rpm -qp --requires /home/nils/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libltc-devel-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.x86_64.rpm libltc(x86-64) = 1.1.1-0.1.fc19 libltc.so.11()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 nils@gibraltar:~/rpmbuild> I think that what you described only works if the built library requires another in its pkgconfig file (i.e. the "Requires" line mustn't be empty) -- libltc doesn't need anything else (except libc but that's not pulled in via pkgconfig).
Unexpected. Which version of package rpm-build is that with? The file /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh hasn't changed between F19 and F20, and: $ rpm -qpR libltc-devel-1.1.1-0.1.fc20.x86_64.rpm|grep pkg /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig
This is rpm-build-4.11.1-3.fc19.x86_64
Hmm...Weird. I think there might have a bug. I get the same result like Nils, but I think RPM can handle this well. @Michael, what is it about that filing a bug for rpmbuild?
I cannot reproduce it with F19 either. Package "rpm-build" requires package "pkgconfig", so /usr/bin/pkg-config is available always. Only if I break the dependency and erase pkgconfig, that disables the detection here. Package "redhat-rpm-config" is not needed. In "strace rpmbuild --rebuild libltc-1.1.1-0.1.fc19.src.rpm | grep pkg" output, one can see what files are accessed for the pkgconfig deps detection. It starts with evaluating this file: $ cat /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/pkgconfig.attr %__pkgconfig_provides %{_rpmconfigdir}/pkgconfigdeps.sh --provides %__pkgconfig_requires %{_rpmconfigdir}/pkgconfigdeps.sh --requires %__pkgconfig_path ^((%{_libdir}|%{_datadir})/pkgconfig/.*\.pc|%{_bindir}/pkg-config)$ If extracting the built ltc.pc file to current dir, one can test manually, too: $ echo ltc.pc | /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh -R /usr/bin/pkg-config $ echo ltc.pc | /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh -P pkgconfig(ltc) = 1.1.1 Find out what happens on your machine(s).
Just for reference (and instead of submitting a koji scratch-build), here's a package for F19 with a .pc file that contains no "Requires" line but results in proper automatic Provides/Requires: xorg-x11-font-utils-1:7.5-17.fc19.x86_64.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=4128869
The culprit is scl-utils-build (if it's installed) and I've filed bug #1023625 for it.
Here's 1.1.2 with the HTML development documentation: Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc.spec Spec URL: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/libltc/libltc-1.1.2-0.1.fc19.src.rpm I've used the guthub hack Brendan mentioned in comment #6 because rgareus can't say when he'll find a place to upload official tarballs.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmaker/Desktop/libltc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 [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 542720 bytes in 60 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. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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 (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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: libltc-1.1.2-0.1.fc21.i686.rpm libltc-devel-1.1.2-0.1.fc21.i686.rpm libltc-1.1.2-0.1.fc21.src.rpm libltc.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.2-1 ['1.1.2-0.1.fc21', '1.1.2-0.1'] ---> You used 0.1 as release tag value, please change to 1 when you build it via SCM. libltc.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ---> Please fix the problem in SCM. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libltc libltc-devel libltc.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.2-1 ['1.1.2-0.1.fc21', '1.1.2-0.1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libltc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libm.so.6 rtld(GNU_HASH) libltc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libltc(x86-32) libltc.so.11 Provides -------- libltc: libltc libltc(x86-32) libltc.so.11 libltc-devel: libltc-devel libltc-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(ltc) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/x42/libltc/archive/968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/libltc-1.1.2-968a1d6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 170b0504db4381c4663964b791cb3e52ac72e0994010843a1265f340f5177ee3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 170b0504db4381c4663964b791cb3e52ac72e0994010843a1265f340f5177ee3 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libltc- 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:36 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libltc- 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:35 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libltc- 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:27 ---> Ping upstream plz. Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn libltc-1.1.2-0.1.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ------------------------------- Please report an issue at github to notify upstream about the obsoleted macros of configure. I saw the min version req is 2.53, you can request a new configure targeted autoconf 2.6x PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #21) > AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libltc- > 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:36 > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libltc- > 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:35 > AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libltc- > 968a1d67779783860bea0bf5b9e38c39c0b3925c/configure.ac:27 > > ---> Ping upstream plz. > > Please report an issue at github to notify upstream about the obsoleted > macros of configure. I saw the min version req is 2.53, you can request a > new configure targeted autoconf 2.6x He should run `autoupdate` and `autoreconf -vfi` on top of build. That would fix that. When upstream is shipping a certain version of autotools, they usually do that to keep compat with their development-environment.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libltc Short Description: Linear/Longitudinal Time Code (LTC) Library Owners: nphilipp Branches: f18 f19 f20 InitialCC:
I concur with Björn why the autofoo files may be not quite up to date. Anyway, this is an artifact of not having official tarballs (which would contain a configure script unlike the on-the-fly generated ones by github that aren't the result of "make dist"), and doesn't concern me too much.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
I've notified Robin Gareus and he'll look into the autotools thing: https://github.com/x42/libltc/issues/9
libltc-1.1.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libltc-1.1.2-1.fc19
libltc-1.1.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libltc-1.1.2-1.fc20
libltc-1.1.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libltc-1.1.2-1.fc18
Package libltc-1.1.2-1.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing libltc-1.1.2-1.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-20094/libltc-1.1.2-1.fc20 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
ardour3-3.5.74-2.fc20, libltc-1.1.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
ardour3-3.5.74-2.fc18, libltc-1.1.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
ardour3-3.5.74-2.fc19, libltc-1.1.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.