Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekd123/fedora/master/tcl-tclbsd.spec SRPM URL: http://ekd123.org/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: tclbsd provides a way for Tcl programs to exercise many interesting and useful system calls and library routines available to C programs on versions of BSD UNIX such as FreeBSD. Many of the interfaces also work with Linux and other non-BSD UNIX variants as well. Fedora Account System Username: unixekd123 Koji (rawhide) and mock (fedora21) report "builds succeeded". See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7832428 . I'm a new packager and thus I need a sponsor. Thanks!
[mkai@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint tcl-tclbsd.spec ../SRPMS/* ../RPMS/*/* tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/BSD1.6/libBSD1.6.so tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tcl-tclbsd/ChangeLog tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 2: warning: macro `HS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 3: warning: macro `BS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 154: warning: macro `CS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 156: warning: macro `CE' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tcl-tclbsd/README 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. The spec file generates empty debug packages. I tried --enable-symbols but no result. However, with --disable-symbols it still warns "unstripped binary or object". I simply disabled debug packages.
Just to clarify, though this library is intended originally for BSD, it does work well on Linux. Only one function isn't supported (according to my simple experiment).
Hi, this is my first (unofficial review). Are you releasing this only for F21 and higher? It fails on my F20 because of requirement: tcl(abi) = 8.6, only 8.5 is available on F20. issues: - You should add license.terms file to %doc in the %files section - The readme states: "This package is a freely available open source package under the "Berkeley" license, same as Tcl." So I think the license should be BSD, not TCL. - %define should be %global https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - spec file is not the same as in srpm see details below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1151759-tcl-tclbsd/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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: 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: [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). [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define libname tclbsd, %define pkgname BSD [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.41 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.41 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.41 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1151759-tcl-tclbsd/results/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '20', 'install', '/home/piotr/rpmbuild/1151759-tcl-tclbsd/results/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.x86_64 (/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.x86_64) Requires: tcl(abi) = 8.6 Available: 1:tcl-8.5.14-1.fc20.i686 (fedora) tcl(abi) = 8.5 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tcl-tclbsd-1.6-1.fc20.src.rpm tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/BSD1.6/libBSD1.6.so tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tcl-tclbsd/ChangeLog tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 2: warning: macro `HS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 3: warning: macro `BS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 154: warning: macro `CS' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/mann/bsd.n.gz 156: warning: macro `CE' not defined tcl-tclbsd.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tcl-tclbsd/README 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1151759-tcl-tclbsd/srpm/tcl-tclbsd.spec 2014-10-11 23:18:16.142458916 +0200 +++ /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1151759-tcl-tclbsd/srpm-unpacked/tcl-tclbsd.spec 2014-10-11 14:59:32.000000000 +0200 @@ -36,5 +36,5 @@ %build autoreconf -i -%configure --libdir=%{tcl_sitearch} +%configure --libdir=%{tcl_sitearch} --disable-symbols make %{?_smp_mflags} @@ -54,5 +54,4 @@ %{tcl_sitearch}/%{pkgname}%{version}/pkgIndex.tcl - %changelog * Sat Oct 11 2014 Ma Kai <crtmike> - 1.6-1 Requires -------- tcl-tclbsd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tcl(abi) Provides -------- tcl-tclbsd: tcl-tclbsd tcl-tclbsd(x86-64) tclbsd Unversioned so-files -------------------- tcl-tclbsd: /usr/lib64/tcl8.5/BSD1.6/libBSD1.6.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/flightaware/tclbsd/archive/v1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7df8693e8d69600f9a136ac7296341145eb1488d847d07afdb5a836cf7cc8a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7df8693e8d69600f9a136ac7296341145eb1488d847d07afdb5a836cf7cc8a5
Hi Piotr, Thanks for your review. tclbsd says it works under tcl8.5, But the guidelines indicated there is only one possibility for one package [1]. To avoid breaking the guidelines, I have to target F21 and higher. :-( Other mistakes are now fixed. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Extensions Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekd123/fedora/master/tcl-tclbsd.spec SRPM URL: http://ekd123.org/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-2.fc21.src.rpm
Hi Ma Kai, Looks good! I've looked into the symbols issue, I don't really understand why it doesn't strip the library correctly... Don't think this is a blocker though. What you could fix is the permissions on the doc files: README, Changelog, license.terms have the executable bit set which shouldn't. (This is actually a bug in the source tar). Regards, Piotr
Some comments: - Drop %defattr() - No need to mark man pages as %doc - Debug is not generated because library is installed with mode 644 instead of 755. You can fix in %install or with: diff -up tclbsd-1.6/Makefile.in.lib tclbsd-1.6/Makefile.in --- tclbsd-1.6/Makefile.in.lib 2014-10-06 19:11:16.000000000 -0600 +++ tclbsd-1.6/Makefile.in 2014-10-12 14:57:32.895712714 -0600 @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ INSTALL_DATA_DIR = @INSTALL_DATA_DIR@ INSTALL_DATA = @INSTALL_DATA@ INSTALL_PROGRAM = @INSTALL_PROGRAM@ INSTALL_SCRIPT = @INSTALL_SCRIPT@ -INSTALL_LIBRARY = @INSTALL_LIBRARY@ +INSTALL_LIBRARY = @INSTALL_PROGRAM@ PACKAGE_NAME = @PACKAGE_NAME@ PACKAGE_VERSION = @PACKAGE_VERSION@ - No need for rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
Thanks for your reviews. These problems are fixed. (I reported the permission problem to the upstream as well.) Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekd123/fedora/master/tcl-tclbsd.spec SRPM URL: http://ekd123.org/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-3.fc21.src.rpm
Hello Ma Kai, FPC member here. (In reply to Ma Kai from comment #4) > Thanks for your review. tclbsd says it works under tcl8.5, But the > guidelines indicated there is only one possibility for one package [1]. To > avoid breaking the guidelines, I have to target F21 and higher. :-( > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl#Extensions Please show me which passage of the Guidelines was misleading so that we (the FPC) can improve it, because the guidelines weren't meant to say such thing. What is meant is that TCL extension package for each Fedora release must Require the TCL ABI version explicitly. I have just modified the text a little bit, but please tell us (via e-mail to packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org) if it can be improved further. It's not forbidden to make a package that works with both 8.5 and 8.6. You have at least two options: 1. Introduce a conditional, e.g.: %if 0%{fedora} > 20 Requires: tcl(abi) = 8.6 %else Requires: tcl(abi) = 8.5 %endif 2. Maintain a (slightly) different spec file for F20 (with the above Requires: line).
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8) > It's not forbidden to make a package that works with both 8.5 and 8.6. My bad... I misunderstood the guidelines. Sorry! Package now updated. It works well with Fedora 20. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ekd123/fedora/master/tcl-tclbsd.spec SRPM URL: http://ekd123.org/tcl-tclbsd-1.6-4.fc21.src.rpm