Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap-1.0.1-1.el6.src.rpm Description: Generic compiler wrapper used by csmock to capture diagnostic messages. Fedora Account System Username: kdudka
you can modernize your spec, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066026#c2
I have added an explanation why we link glibc statically. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap-1.0.2-1.el6.src.rpm
Just a couple of clarifications needed about the spec file. I am also doing a koji scrach build. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. ---> However, explanation for this is provided in the spec file. So, [x] [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: "GPL". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1066028-cswrap/licensecheck.txt [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. [?]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> You had mentioned in cscppc review request about maintaining the package for EL 5. Is the same applicable here? [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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: [?]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed ---> I guess, another EL 5 requirement. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. ---> Doing koji scratch build right now. [-]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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: cswrap-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm cswrap-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm cswrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csmock -> smock, c smock, cs mock cswrap.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided abscc cswrap.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/cswrap cswrap.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cswrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cswrap cswrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csmock -> smock, c smock, cs mock cswrap.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes abscc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint cswrap cswrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csmock -> smock, c smock, cs mock cswrap.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided abscc cswrap.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/cswrap cswrap.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/cswrap cswrap.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cswrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cswrap 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- cswrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cswrap: cswrap cswrap(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/cswrap.git/snapshot/cswrap-1.0.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8679db8e869043a05c8bf2fd6651abc8aa458608fad8370034a6c62f994d8204 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8679db8e869043a05c8bf2fd6651abc8aa458608fad8370034a6c62f994d8204 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 1066028 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: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
ok, koji builds look fine. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6617549
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3) Thank you for the quick response on this request, Mukundan! > [?]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > ---> You had mentioned in cscppc review request about maintaining the > package for EL 5. Is the same applicable here? While the cs* packages are regularly built for RHEL-5, I have no evidence that someone actually uses them on a RHEL-5 system. I will simply drop the RHEL-5 support for all the cs* packages now...
... done. I have also removed the obsolete for abscc, which has never been an official Fedora package. Spec URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap.spec SRPM URL: http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/cswrap/cswrap-1.0.2-2.el6.src.rpm
According to the packaging guidelines, I think this needs FESCO approval since there is a statically linked executable. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables Can you please take care of this?
Sure. I have filed a FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1253
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #3) > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: cswrap-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm > cswrap-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm > cswrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csmock -> smock, c > smock, cs mock > cswrap.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided abscc > cswrap.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/cswrap > cswrap.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > cswrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cswrap I have pushed a simple man page upstream: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/cswrap.git/commit/?id=9db53633
FESCO has granted static linking exception. Package APPROVED.
Thank you very much for the review, Mukundan!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cswrap Short Description: Generic compiler wrapper Owners: kdudka Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thank you for setting up the git repo!
cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc20
cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc19
cswrap-1.0.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cswrap-1.0.3-1.el6
cswrap-1.0.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
cswrap-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
cswrap-1.0.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.