Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait-20041208-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Sunwait is a small C program for calculating sunrise and sunset, as well as civil, nautical, and astronomical twilights. It has features that make it useful for home automation tasks. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha
Some remarks: - Building this package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS. One way to achieve this is to pass RPM_OPT_FLAGS through the environment. I.e., e.g. to apply this change to your spec: @@ -27,7 +25,7 @@ %setup -q %build -make %{?_smp_mflags} +make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" %install install -d -m 755 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir} - With RPM_OPT_FLAGS enable, building issues quite a lot of fairly serious warnings. Without having checked details, it's obvious this code suffers from its age, with my gut feeling telling me this package could be not 64bit-clean.
Oops, the package whose spec I started from passed in RPM_OPT_FLAGS via configure, so when I ripped out configure I forgot to add it to the CFLAGS. I don't like the compiler warnings, but none of them prevents sunwait from working correctly on my x86_64. I've double-checked the output times (e.g., from "sunwait -p") against web sites. I'm using it in a cron job and it performs as expected. If the new maintainers get their act together on packaging sources for their fork, and get it to build on Linux again, I'll work with them to eliminate the warnings, if they haven't already. However, since the program works fine as-is, I don't really want to wait on that. Thanks! Eric
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait-20041208-2.fc19.src.rpm
1) there is hardcoded upstream version in main.c as 0.1 ==> the main version should be 0.1 instead and the snapshot version should be only in the release tag 2) group: not needed, if not packaged for EPEL 3) better would be to use %doc sunwait.html (in that case there is needed to copy %{SOURCE1} in %prep), another advantage will be you won't need _pkgconfigdir macro 5) license is "or later", so the license field should be "GPLv2+" 6) packages should contain man pages for all binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Man_pages It is not strictly required and no show-stoper for the review. But it could help users to have it (describing thet the utility will wait by default, ...)
What's the status? Eric, are you still willing to work on this package or we can close this ticket?
Will look at it this week.
Includes all proposed changes in František Dvořák's comment 4 above. Thanks! Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait-0.1-0.1.20041208.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #7) 2 remarks: - You are not using %pkgdate consistently. At most places you are using %pkgdate, but SourceO doesn't. - These days, %{!?_pkgdocdir: ...} isn't necessary anymore, unless you are addressing a very old EPEL.
Includes changes for Ralf Corsepius' comment 8 above. Thanks! Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait-0.1-0.2.20041208.fc21.src.rpm
Some more details (I'm sorry not noticing before): 1) for the license file it better to use %license tag, something like: %license COPYING %doc sunwait.html 2) timestamps should be preserved (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps), so you can use: cp -p %{SOURCE1} sunwait.html 3) the warning "incompatible implicit declaration" may be sometimes quite dangerous (in case there is returned pointer implicitly retyped into int) Here it is OK, the strstr() is checked only on non-zero return value. You can consider patching main.c and include <string.h> there (but it isn't needed).
Includes changes for František Dvořák's comment 10 above. Thanks! Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/sunwait/sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc21.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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. [-]: 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 1 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. Note: upstream not active anymore [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. No testsuite available. [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]: 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: sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc22.x86_64.rpm sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc22.src.rpm sunwait.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US twilights -> twilight, twilight's, twilight s sunwait.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sunwait/COPYING sunwait.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sunwait sunwait.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US twilights -> twilight, twilight's, twilight s 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- sunwait (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sunwait: sunwait sunwait(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.risacher.org/sunwait/sunwait-20041208.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46ecd64142e0c7c2decac8df241b78ccae0d1b323929fb4d61aa1acc16a9ff96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46ecd64142e0c7c2decac8df241b78ccae0d1b323929fb4d61aa1acc16a9ff96 http://www.risacher.org/sunwait/index.html : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47756c7de46d6f5f1bcec2d4048e0a85aa865226fee366ff951fa3f8d142ba25 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47756c7de46d6f5f1bcec2d4048e0a85aa865226fee366ff951fa3f8d142ba25 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-22-x86_64 -b 1045676 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG === Package APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sunwait Short Description: Calculate sunrise, sunset, twilight Upstream URL: https://www.risacher.org/sunwait/ Owners: brouhaha Branches: f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc22
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc21
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el7
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.