Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace-4.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tools for tracing OpenGL Fedora Account System Username: smani
*** Bug 920310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi. BR pkgconfig, qt-devel, libpng-devel and zlib-devel will be installed with qtwebkit-devel. So it can be dropped.
Wrong # Install doc through %%doc rm -rf %{_buildroot}%{_docdir}/ Must be rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6187432
Thanks! Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace-4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Nov 16 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 4.0-2 - Fix %%{_buildroot} -> %%{buildroot} typo - Remove explicit BRs which are implicit
F19 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6187543
# Install desktop file desktop-file-install --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/qapitrace.desktop %{SOURCE1} It is not work as you want. This command make %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/qapitrace.desktop dir and put apitrace.desktop to this dir. So your desktop file after installing package will be /usr/share/applications/qapitrace.desktop/apitrace.desktop
Thanks for catching that, it was already wrong in a previous package. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace-4.0-3.fc21.src.rpm * Sat Nov 16 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 4.0-3 - Fix desktop-file-install syntax
1. Add shebang to /usr/lib64/apitrace/scripts/highlight.py and you should send a patch to upstream 2. Use BR: python2-devel https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires 3. Maybe it is a good idea to split package to two subpackage apitrace which contains console utilities and apitrace-gui with qapitrace. It not necessarily, it is for your own choise. 4. Many source files has no licence text. Seems it is enough to have only license file in source tree. But I think it is good idea to work with to upstream to add licence text to each source file.
Concerning the highlight.py shebang: highlight.py is not meant to be a runnable python script (note that it misses a main function, while the other scripts have one), so I think that it is correct that it does not have a shebang (many python modules in the python site-packages do not have shebangs). Without shebang however the file should not be executable, which I have fixed. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/apitrace-4.0-4.fc21.src.rpm * Mon Nov 18 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 4.0-4 - chmod 0644 scripts/highlight.py - Fix all python shebangs according to fedora guidelines - Use BR: python2-devel - Split off qapitrace into subpackage
> - Fix all python shebangs according to fedora guidelines I can't find this guidelines. Seems no difference which shebang will be used. But it must be present (sure only if script has executable bit).
I think there was some discussion of that kind some time ago on fedora-devel. However, all I can find now is [1], plus some discussions here and there. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython
Sounds reasonable. Ok I agree.
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. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", "libpng", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "LGPL (v2.1)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 163 files have unknown license. Not MIT licence are used by bundle libraries not apitrace. Files without explicity licence in header have MIT licence. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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 Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Package has no python eggs. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. App doesn't provide tests [?]: 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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: apitrace-4.0-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm apitrace-gui-4.0-4.fc21.x86_64.rpm apitrace-4.0-4.fc21.src.rpm apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eglretrace apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apitrace apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glretrace apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qapitrace 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint apitrace-gui apitrace apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation apitrace-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qapitrace apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eglretrace apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apitrace apitrace.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glretrace 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- apitrace-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apitrace(x86-64) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libqjson.so.0()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) apitrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) python-pillow rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- apitrace-gui: apitrace-gui apitrace-gui(x86-64) application() application(qapitrace.desktop) apitrace: apitrace apitrace(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- apitrace: /usr/lib64/apitrace/wrappers/egltrace.so apitrace: /usr/lib64/apitrace/wrappers/glxtrace.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/apitrace/apitrace/archive/4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7e1c5990b223eeebff82fceee033d35226e6e94421210d628f6bbb1a3b39199 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7e1c5990b223eeebff82fceee033d35226e6e94421210d628f6bbb1a3b39199 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1030107 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ---------------- Only one not critical issue. You should link patches with upstream bug reports. Or add explanation that it is Fedora specific.
Thanks! Let me know if I can review anything in exchange. Concerning the patch comments: I'll improve those in the spec, but basically apitrace-4.0_libdir.patch and part of apitrace-4.0_resources.patch is upstreamable, the rest depends on whether upstream wants to reconsider their position on bundling the various libraries (which I take from the comments in the cmake files won't be the case, since their main reason was to make it easier for users on other platforms to compile apitrace). New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: apitrace Short Description: Tools for tracing OpenGL Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
apitrace-4.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apitrace-4.0-4.fc20
apitrace-4.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apitrace-4.0-4.fc19
apitrace-4.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
apitrace-4.0-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
apitrace-4.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.