Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ePiX/epix.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ePiX/epix-1.2.13-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: ePiX (pronounced like "epic" with a soft "k", playing on "TeX"), a collection of command line utilities for *nix, creates mathematically accurate figures, plots, and movies using easy-to-learn syntax. The output is expressly designed for use with LaTeX. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter
epix needs 'epix.h' and 'libepix.a' files to work. I chose to package all header files and libepix.a in a -devel subpackage but I'm not sure if it's right.
Koji build in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6296655
Well, this looks interesting.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== MUST [!]: Please use %{version} macro in Source0. [!]: %{_docdir}/%{name} is not owned by the package. Fix this by changing %{_docdir}/%{name}/manual* to %{_docdir}/%{name}/. You can also consider removing the automatically installed docdir and using %doc to include the manual. [!]: Perhaps caused by the above, main package contains 1.4MB of documentation. ... and its source. [!]: Manual PDF is gz compressed. It should be decompressed. [!]: Please require -devel instead of -static for the main package as the binaries also require the header files. SHOULD [!]: I find the use of wildcards like %{_bindir}/* a bit ... wild. Please consider listing the files explicitly, because this makes the spec file clearer, and is somewhat safr because you'll note if a binary vanishes or appears. Listing %{_bindir}/elaps %{_bindir}/epix %{_bindir}/flix %{_bindir}/laps should not be too hard.. and the same for the man pages. [!]: I'd recommend splitting the BuildRequires one per line in alphabetical order. [!]: You use --enable-el. Should you also generate a subpackage for the emacs plugin for easier install? [!]: Same thing for bash completion. ===== 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]: 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. See above. [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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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. [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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Use something like for f in THANKS; do iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf8 $f > $f.new && \ touch -r $f $f.new && \ mv $f.new $f done to preserve the time stamps. [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: epix-1.2.13-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm epix-devel-1.2.13-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm epix-doc-1.2.13-1.fc20.noarch.rpm epix-1.2.13-1.fc20.src.rpm epix.x86_64: E: devel-dependency epix-static epix.x86_64: E: no-binary epix.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/epix/config/epix.el epix.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/epix/manual.pdf.gz epix.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/epix/COPYING epix-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation epix-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/epix/manual.pdf.gz epix-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/epix-doc/COPYING 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings. The errors are erroneous. The incorrect fsf address errors should be reported upstream. TThe manual warning should disappear when you decompress it.
> [!]: You use --enable-el. Should you also generate a subpackage for the > emacs plugin for easier install? > [!]: Same thing for bash completion. Honestly, I had some doubts if do it or not. Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ePiX/epix.spec SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ePiX/epix-1.2.13-2.fc20.src.rpm
- Please split the Requires lines as well. - The bash-completion package must Requires: bash. - I'd not ship manual.ps, because it's contents is the same as manual.pdf. Up to you. - Maybe you'd also like to make the man page lines in %files explicit, e.g. %{_mandir}/man1/epix.1* These are minor issues, which you can fix these upon git import. The package has been APPROVED
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: epix Short Description: Utilities for mathematically accurate figures Owners: sagitter Branches: f19 f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).
epix-1.2.13-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/epix-1.2.13-3.fc20
epix-1.2.13-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/epix-1.2.13-3.fc19
epix-1.2.13-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
epix-1.2.13-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
epix-1.2.13-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
I don't understanding the packaging applied here: epix requires epix-static (which is a virtual package in epix-devel) epix-devel requires epix => a circular dependency between epix and epix-devel If headers and static lib are strictly required at _runtime_, it would have been more elegant to include everything in a single package. Just like it's done for compilers and similar tools. What does it do with the static lib and the headers at runtime? [...] On x86_64, "dnf install epix.i686" and "dnf install epix" differ. The former pulls in epix.x86_64 - possibly because of a broken dep somewhere.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #14) > I don't understanding the packaging applied here: > > epix requires epix-static (which is a virtual package in epix-devel) > epix-devel requires epix > => a circular dependency between epix and epix-devel > > If headers and static lib are strictly required at _runtime_, it would have > been more elegant to include everything in a single package. Just like it's > done for compilers and similar tools. > > What does it do with the static lib and the headers at runtime? > > [...] > > On x86_64, "dnf install epix.i686" and "dnf install epix" differ. The former > pulls in epix.x86_64 - possibly because of a broken dep somewhere. Indeed, i have rearranged sub-package's dependencies recently. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/epix.git/tree/epix.spec