Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch-2.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Generic batch management library Fedora Account System Username: smani This library is a dependency for the salome platform.
(Note that this is an **INFORMAL** review.) I think BuildRequire should explicitly have python2-devel instead of python-devel, also %{python_sitearch} is deprecated and %{python2_sitearch} should be used according to <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python>.
Thanks. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch-2.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Sun Feb 16 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 2.1.0-2 - Explicitly specify python2
I'll take this one. I may have time to do the review tomorrow.
And putting this in the right place... Ok, a high level review: 1. The license should be LGPLv2 (version 2.1 is the first release so the short name doesn't have the ".1") https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing 2. rpmlint output from the installed package: $ rpmlint libbatch libbatch.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 libbatch.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git ## This one needs to be fixed[1] ## libbatch.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_libbatch.so _libbatch.so()(64bit) ## I can patch the cmake build to add a soname ## libbatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libbatch.so libbatch.so ## One thing I don't like about cmake is the way it links everything, ## adding something like "export LDFLAGS='-Wl,--as-needed'" will usually ## fix this. libbatch.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libbatch.so /lib64/libm.so.6 ## Should be reported upstream but not a blocker. libbatch.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libbatch-2.1.0/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Preventing_files.2Fdirectories_from_being_scanned_for_deps_.28pre-scan_filtering.29 # Do not check .so files in the python_sitelib directory # or any files in the application's directory for provides %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python_sitearch}/.*\\.so|%{_datadir}/myapp/.*)$
Thanks! If you have a quick patch for the soname, I'd be happy (would need to do some research on how to do it properly).
Here you go, I went ahead and took care of most of it while I was at it. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/libbatch.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/libbatch_soversion.patch Changes: - Filter private libaries from Provides/Requires. - Stop excessive linking (unused-direct-shlib-dependency). - Add library soversion.
Go ahead and review the changes and post new links when you're happy with it. I'll see if I can do the full review today.
Changes look good, thanks a lot! Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 17 2014 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069> - 2.1.0-3 - Filter private libaries from Provides/Requires. - Stop excessive linking (unused-direct-shlib-dependency). - Add library soversion.
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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: "LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/1065754-libbatch/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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [?]: 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: libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm libbatch-devel-2.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc19.src.rpm libbatch.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git libbatch.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libbatch-2.1.0/COPYING libbatch-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git libbatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libbatch.src: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git libbatch.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libbatch-2.1.0.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libbatch-devel libbatch libbatch-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git libbatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libbatch.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git.salome-platform.org/gitweb/?p=tools/libbatch.git libbatch.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libbatch-2.1.0/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libbatch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake filesystem libbatch(x86-64) libbatch.so.2.1()(64bit) libbatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libbatch.so.2.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libbatch-devel: libbatch-devel libbatch-devel(x86-64) libbatch: libbatch libbatch(x86-64) libbatch.so.2.1()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libbatch: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_libbatch.so Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1065754 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG *** APPROVED ***
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libbatch Short Description: Generic batch management library Owners: smani Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc20
libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
libbatch-2.1.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.