Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog-0-1.52hg.fc20.src.rpm Description: QsLog is an easy to use logger that is based on Qt's QDebug class. Features: * Six logging levels (from trace to fatal) * Logging level threshold configurable at runtime. * Minimum overhead when logging is turned off. * Supports multiple destinations, comes with file and debug destinations. * Thread-safe * Supports logging of common Qt types out of the box. Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola rpmlint output: QsLog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment QsLog.src: W: invalid-url Source0: QsLog-54hg.tar.xz QsLog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment QsLog.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These are all OK.
Actually, that's http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog-0-1.54hg.fc20.src.rpm
Hi Susi. - I don't see any License file in the sources although all files are released with a 'BSD (3 clause)' license according to their headers. I think you should include a License text. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Why are you using the %_qt4_qmake macro instead of %{_qt4_qmake} ?
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2) > Hi Susi. > > - I don't see any License file in the sources although all files are > released with a 'BSD (3 clause)' license according to their headers. > I think you should include a License text. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Adding license texts separate from upstream is explicitly forbidden. And asking upstream to add the text is a SHOULD. > - Why are you using the %_qt4_qmake macro instead of %{_qt4_qmake} ? Well, these are the same thing, the {} doesn't do anything here.
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3) > Adding license texts separate from upstream is explicitly forbidden. > And asking upstream to add the text is a SHOULD. I've now asked upstream to add a license file.
Any progress?
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #5) > Any progress? I'm waiting for License file. > Adding license texts separate from upstream is explicitly forbidden. Honestly, I read the contrary on the wiki: > However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to > provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated > license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must > either: > ... > - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. It is worth noting that this may place some additional risk on the packager, however, > ... > - Choose not to package that software for Fedora. Am I in wrong ?
Well, looks like the policy has changed. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog-0-2.54hg.fc20.src.rpm
- 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' present but not required. Please remove it. - License text file separated from upstream and extracted by QsLog.cpp file. - 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings can be ignored, I think. - QsLogReadme.txt file can be packaged in the main package as %doc. - 'invalid-url' can be ignored 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1044607-QsLog/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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 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: QsLog-0-2.54hg.fc21.x86_64.rpm QsLog-devel-0-2.54hg.fc21.x86_64.rpm QsLog-0-2.54hg.fc21.src.rpm QsLog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment QsLog.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/QsLog/LICENSE QsLog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment QsLog.src: W: invalid-url Source0: QsLog-54hg.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint QsLog QsLog-devel QsLog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment QsLog.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQsLog.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 QsLog.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libQsLog.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 QsLog.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/QsLog/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- QsLog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) QsLog-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): QsLog(x86-64) libQsLog.so.2()(64bit) Provides -------- QsLog: QsLog QsLog(x86-64) libQsLog.so.2()(64bit) QsLog-devel: QsLog-devel QsLog-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1044607 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: BATCH, EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8) > - 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' present but not required. Please remove it. > - QsLogReadme.txt file can be packaged in the main package as %doc. Fixed. Also fixed encoding of LICENSE. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20.src.rpm
Package approved.
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: QsLog Short Description: An easy to use logger that is based on Qt's QDebug class Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F18 F19 F20 EL6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). No new f18 branches are being created.
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6,QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6,QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6, QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20, QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19, QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6, QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.