Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: Provides binary-decimal and decimal-binary routines for IEEE doubles. The library consists of efficient conversion routines that have been extracted from the V8 JavaScript engine. The code has been re-factored and improved so that it can be used more easily in other projects. Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan I'd like to include this package because it is a dependency of the Julia language that I am currently packaging (I will submit a review request soon). The Koji build is: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6276128 rpmlint prints no errors, except a warning because for some reason it gets a 404 error when trying to download the tarball (the URL works when opening manually). This is my first package so I need sponsoring. :-)
- rpmbuild -ba --without static_libs double-conversion.spec fails with: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion.a /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion_pic.a - I don't understand the use of %ghost: %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.*.*.* %ghost %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.2 Normally this is just: %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.* although I recommend: %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.2* to detect soname bumps. - Drop BuildRoot (unless targeting EPEL 5). - macro consistency - drop the %{__rm} in clean, just use rm as elsewhere. - Use %{?dist} in Release.
If the static libs are not needed, I would just drop them.
Thanks for the fast review! I've updated the links above with an improved version. See below for replies. (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #1) > - rpmbuild -ba --without static_libs double-conversion.spec fails with: > > RPM build errors: > Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion.a > /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion_pic.a Ah, I hadn't tried this, for some reason I assumed Koji would have done that. I've added an option to SConstruct to avoid installing static libraries. I can drop this feature if you think it's better, but now that it exists, I guess it could be useful to somebody. > - I don't understand the use of %ghost: > > %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.*.*.* > %ghost %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.2 > > Normally this is just: > > %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.* > > although I recommend: > > %{_libdir}/libdouble-conversion.so.2* > > to detect soname bumps. Actually I couldn't understand why PLD used that, but since I'm new to .spec files I assumed it was correct. Maybe it's supposed to work when libdouble-conversion.so.2 is automatically created by ldconfig from libdouble-conversion.so.2.0.0. Your solution makes more sense to me, since we actually ship the file. > - Drop BuildRoot (unless targeting EPEL 5). Same - copied from PLD. > - macro consistency - drop the %{__rm} in clean, just use rm as elsewhere. Same. > - Use %{?dist} in Release. Done.
Great, but please bump the release and add a changelog entry, even during the review process. It helps keeping track of changes.
OK, new version is at: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Minor note - go ahead and pass CXXFLAGS to scons in %check. - Drop rm -rf %{_buildroot} in %install, not needed - You generally want to use %global instead of %define, but this also would work: scons \ %if %{with static_libs} install \ %else install-shared \ %endif CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" \ libsuffix=%{_lib} \ prefix=%{_prefix} \ DESTDIR=%{buildroot} \ VERSION="%{version}" - You are not actually running any tests in %check, this fixes: %check scons run_tests ./run_tests --list | tr -d '<' | xargs ./run_tests ===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/double- conversion-2.0.0/1040027-double-conversion/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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 10240 bytes in 4 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in double- conversion-static [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define target install, %define target install-shared [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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-devel-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-static-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cctest -> cutest, cc test, cc-test double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://double-conversion.googlecode.com/files/double-conversion-2.0.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint double-conversion double-conversion-devel double-conversion-static double-conversion.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cctest -> cutest, cc test, cc-test double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- double-conversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) double-conversion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): double-conversion(x86-64) libdouble-conversion.so.2()(64bit) double-conversion-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): double-conversion-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- double-conversion: double-conversion double-conversion(x86-64) libdouble-conversion.so.2()(64bit) double-conversion-devel: double-conversion-devel double-conversion-devel(x86-64) double-conversion-static: double-conversion-static double-conversion-static(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://double-conversion.googlecode.com/files/double-conversion-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 045308f23e44ac65a2830bd425cd8f01a020562bd8536f72c8df6fd82a03ded2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 045308f23e44ac65a2830bd425cd8f01a020562bd8536f72c8df6fd82a03ded2 Using local file /export/home/orion/redhat/double-conversion-2.0.0/SConstruct as upstream file:///export/home/orion/redhat/double-conversion-2.0.0/SConstruct : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9942448f73d1f73e4df02267b1db1020ccc0a0ded6a9f3f2a925fc331145f890 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9942448f73d1f73e4df02267b1db1020ccc0a0ded6a9f3f2a925fc331145f890 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1040027 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 now sponsored you, welcome aboard. Please ask me if you have any packaging questions.
Thanks! I've fixed all of those, except the rpmlint warnings. As I said, the URL error is weird since it is correct when opened manually. Spelling mistakes are actually file paths. About documentation, should I duplicate the LICENSE in each subpackage? Finally, the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning is about libgcc_s.so.1, which is apparently always used by g++: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-11/msg00023.html Do you think I should pass "-Wl,--as-needed"? The new versions are at: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm (Sorry, I get a crash when I try to run fedora-review. I'm going to upgrade to F20 soon.)
Woops, the URLs are: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-3.fc19.src.rpm
Sorry, I should have explicitly mentioned to ignore the rpmlint warnings. (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #8) > Thanks! I've fixed all of those, except the rpmlint warnings. As I said, the > URL error is weird since it is correct when opened manually. Spelling > mistakes are actually file paths. About documentation, should I duplicate > the LICENSE in each subpackage? Yeah, URL warning is weird, but I could download fine too. No need to duplicate the LICENSE in each subpackage because they all end up requiring the base package which requires it. > Finally, the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning is about libgcc_s.so.1, > which is apparently always used by g++: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-11/msg00023.html > Do you think I should pass "-Wl,--as-needed"? This is an issue with the g++ linker always adding it. I suppose you could try adding as-needed, but not a big deal. > The new versions are at: > http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec > http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src. > rpm > > (Sorry, I get a crash when I try to run fedora-review. I'm going to upgrade > to F20 soon.) Ah, I doubt you need BR libstdc++-devel as well. Also, move %check after %install - nice to keep them in execution order. Those are minor though so I'm going to approve now.
OK, great, thanks for your help. I'm going to request the new git repo and commit the fixed version.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: double-conversion Short Description: Library providing binary-decimal and decimal-binary routines for IEEE doubles Owners: nalimilan Branches: f20 f19 InitialCC: orion
There was an error, please submit a Package Change Request for f20 and f19
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: double-conversion New Branches: f20 f19 Owners: nalimilan InitialCC: orion
Git done (by process-git-requests).
double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc19
double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc20
double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
I think we can say it's OK now. :-)
Push the updates to stable.
Ah, I forgot that without enough Karma the push has to be done manually. Done.
double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
double-conversion-2.0.0-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: double-conversion New Branches: epel7 Owners: nalimilan InitialCC: Requested in Bug 1177998, qt5-qtdeclarative would like to use the package.