Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-catkin_lint/python-catkin_lint.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-catkin_lint/python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: catkin_lint checks package configurations for the catkin build system of ROS. It is part of an ongoing effort to aid developers with their ROS packaging (see also: issue #153). [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %check python-catkin_lint.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
It seems like there is a typo in the Requires; it should be "python-catkin_pkg" not "python-catking_pkg". Other than that, it looks fine, and fedora-review seems happy, so once you correct the .spec I will do the formal review.
As you mentioned a swap on the Fedora devel mailing list, would bug 1076186 be OK for you?
(In reply to David King from comment #2) > As you mentioned a swap on the Fedora devel mailing list, would bug 1076186 > be OK for you? Hi David, Sure. I'll take up 1076186. I'll update this package asap too. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur
Hi, spec/srpm updated: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-catkin_lint/python-catkin_lint.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-catkin_lint/python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur
The rpmlint warnings seems fine, looks good to me. Although it works without, does it make sense to also add a Requires on python-rosdep? ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1084681 -python-catkin_lint/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/bash_completion.d(git, rpmdevtools, filesystem, pulseaudio, yum-utils, bash-completion, fedpkg, source-highlight) [-]: 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]: 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 20480 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: 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]: 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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: [!]: 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %check python-catkin_lint.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/catkin_lint python-catkin_lint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_lint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-catkin_lint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-catkin_pkg Provides -------- python-catkin_lint: python-catkin_lint Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/catkin_lint/catkin_lint-1.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7ce467bf781616bc19af6adff05dacd82ad3b2599b39c8ea71efddfcc2b3ddac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ce467bf781616bc19af6adff05dacd82ad3b2599b39c8ea71efddfcc2b3ddac Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1084681 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
I'm not sure about rosdep. rosdep itself pulls in a lot of other ros stuff. I think people would like to just use catkin_lint as a stand alone utility, even if they're not using the entire ros package set? Thanks for the review, David. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-catkin_lint Short Description: Check catkin packages for common errors Owners: ankursinha rmattes cottsay Branches: fedora20 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-catkin_lint Short Description: Check catkin packages for common errors Owners: ankursinha rmattes cottsay Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc20
python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-catkin_lint-1.3.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.