Bug 1141544 (gnat-srpm-macros) - Review Request: gnat-srpm-macros - RPM macros needed when source packages that need GNAT are built
Summary: Review Request: gnat-srpm-macros - RPM macros needed when source packages tha...
Alias: gnat-srpm-macros
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Zhukov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1133632
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-09-14 14:52 UTC by Björn Persson
Modified: 2014-09-30 21:34 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-09-30 21:34:51 UTC
Type: ---
pavel: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Björn Persson 2014-09-14 14:52:44 UTC
Spec URL: https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/gnat-srpm-macros-1-1/gnat-srpm-macros.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/gnat-srpm-macros-1-1/gnat-srpm-macros-1-1.fc20.src.rpm
This package contains RPM macros that need to be available when source RPM
packages that need the GNAT tools are built. It is a standalone package in
order to have as few dependencies as possible.

This package takes over the file /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.gnat-srpm from redhat-rpm-config. The package name is consistent with perl-srpm-macros, ocaml-srpm-macros and ghc-srpm-macros. This extremely simple package doesn't need multiple levels of version numbers, so this is simply version 1. There are no documentation files; it's better in this case to keep the explanations in macros.gnat-srpm itself.

Fedora Account System username: rombobeorn

Comment 1 Pavel Zhukov 2014-09-15 05:27:01 UTC
Thanks Björn!
I'll review.

Comment 2 Pavel Zhukov 2014-09-17 17:31:57 UTC
===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[-]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[+]: 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
[+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[+]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[+]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: gnat-srpm-macros-1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
gnat-srpm-macros.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found sv 
gnat-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gnat-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Comment 3 Björn Persson 2014-09-18 22:00:26 UTC
Thanks Pavel! I'll add you as a co-maintainer so you can update GPRbuild_arches as needed.

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: gnat-srpm-macros
Short Description: RPM macros needed when source packages that need GNAT are built
Upstream URL: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnat-srpm-macros.git
Owners: rombobeorn landgraf
Branches: f21

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-19 13:44:19 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-09-23 21:27:38 UTC
gnat-srpm-macros-1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-09-30 01:58:33 UTC
gnat-srpm-macros-1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.