Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.11-1/glite-lb-logger-msg.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.11-1/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.11-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: L&B logger plugin for delivering notification messages into the messaging infrastructure. Fedora Account System Username: valtri koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6505782
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.12-1/glite-lb-logger-msg.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.12-1/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.12-1.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6915600 * New release 1.2.12 (gLite L&B 4.1.1)
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-1/glite-lb-logger-msg.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-1/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-1.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7096471 Changelog: * New release 1.2.13 (L&B 4.1.2) * Added man pages * Consistent style with buildroot macro rpmlint: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in glite-lb-logger-msg See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Has been Patch1 filed upstream? Could you please refer URL of the upstream ticket in the SPEC file? [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package I believe %{_libdir}/activemq_cpp_plugin.so should go to -devel (also, there are no header files, are they?) [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Why do you call ./configure with explicit perl? ./configure has correct shebang line and it is executable so it works without it. ===== 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. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)". [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Why do you call ./configure with explicit perl? ./configure has correct shebang line and it is executable so it works without it. [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 I believe %{_libdir}/activemq_cpp_plugin.so should go to -devel (also, there are no header files?) [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 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. CHECKSUM(SHA256): 34c6af53c60c0c23d7c4c75083c55dfefccf78ecbf692aa74b5ea42e8dc5c1a3 [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: 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. Has been Patch1 filed upstream? Could you please refer URL of the upstream ticket in the SPEC file? [-]: 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. [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 is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-1.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint glite-lb-logger-msg glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 TIMEOUT glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 event_store_commit glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 event_queue_get glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 set_error glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 event_queue_remove glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 event_queue_empty glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libuuid.so.1 glite-lb-logger-msg.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/activemq_cpp_plugin.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2/glite-lb-logger-msg.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc22.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Sep 26 2014 František Dvořák <valtri.cz> - 1.2.13-2 - Added link to upstream man pages patch (In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #3) > > Issues: > ======= > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > Has been Patch1 filed upstream? Could you please refer URL of the > upstream ticket in the SPEC file? You're right, fixed (https://github.com/CESNET/glite-lb/commit/b92e20cc3a0c4088c74a7ce4c2b8e20dd7807a16). > [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package > I believe %{_libdir}/activemq_cpp_plugin.so should go to -devel > (also, there are no header files, are they?) This is the plugin and non-versioned link is used at runtime for loading it dynamically. It is built by libtool, which handles automatically the versioning. > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > Why do you call ./configure with explicit perl? ./configure has > correct shebang line and it is executable so it works without it. > There were a recommendation to not using absolute paths when invoking perl (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597#c3): "Don't use absolute paths in your spec. Call perl simply 'perl' (preferred) or use the %{__perl} macro." (CCing also perl-devel list)
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #4) > There were a recommendation to not using absolute paths when invoking perl > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597#c3): ./configure is not absolute path, and IMHO /usr/bin/perl INSIDE Of the script doesn’t count as it is the standard location of perl. If we ever change that, we will have a way more problems than grepping all SPEC files to change the location. Anyway, APPROVED!
(In reply to Matěj Cepl from comment #5) > (In reply to František Dvořák from comment #4) > > There were a recommendation to not using absolute paths when invoking perl > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892597#c3): > > ./configure is not absolute path, and IMHO /usr/bin/perl INSIDE Of the > script doesn’t count as it is the standard location of perl. If we ever > change that, we will have a way more problems than grepping all SPEC files > to change the location. > I see. In the initial version of the glite-lb-types were explicitly used '/usr/bin/perl' in spec, so the recommendation were to replace it by 'perl'. And using only './configure' will be even better. > Anyway, APPROVED! Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: glite-lb-logger-msg Short Description: Plugin for sending L&B notifications to messaging infrastructure Upstream URL: http://glite.cern.ch Owners: valtri Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc21
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc20
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc19
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.el6
glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.