Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/csnappy/csnappy.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/csnappy/csnappy-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.src.rpm Description: This is an ANSI C port of Google's Snappy library. Snappy is a compression library designed for speed rather than compression ratios. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [ ] Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages [ ] Note directly an issue, but: https://code.google.com/p/snappy/ points to https://github.com/andikleen/snappy-c as its C port. Why not using this one as source? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ---> License file is missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [-]: 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. [-]: 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 [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7853108 [x]: %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]: 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: csnappy-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.x86_64.rpm csnappy-devel-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.x86_64.rpm csnappy-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.src.rpm csnappy.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so csnappy-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint csnappy csnappy-devel csnappy.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so csnappy-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- csnappy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) csnappy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): csnappy(x86-64) Provides -------- csnappy: csnappy csnappy(x86-64) libcsnappy.so()(64bit) csnappy-devel: csnappy-devel csnappy-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- csnappy: /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeevt/csnappy/archive/b43c183fdad31be0500a5f2ae022a54a66cb1a3d/csnappy-b43c183fdad31be0500a5f2ae022a54a66cb1a3d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09add981a4e2f4e647a9c87947a35eb0622d72af628bf03d351a2d9d412ec26f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09add981a4e2f4e647a9c87947a35eb0622d72af628bf03d351a2d9d412ec26f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1152057 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
So the issue with this package is? Is the only problem that I did not requested upstream for a global license file? I cannot see how the request can change current code, but nevertheless there <https://github.com/zeevt/csnappy/issues/21> is the license request.
Hi! Quote from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text: "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT." Therefore, it is not enough,just to inform upstream about the missing license text. So please include a copy of the license text, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance. Cheers, Flo
I see. Thanks. I think that the guidelines forgets that the licenses require to distribute not only license text, but also copyright notice. So I added a script into the spec file which gathers the data and put them into LICENSE file. Updated SPEC and SRPM files are on the same addresses.
Hi Petr! Looks good! 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: 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: [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7884148 [x]: %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]: 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: csnappy-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.x86_64.rpm csnappy-devel-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.x86_64.rpm csnappy-0-0.20141010gitb43c183.fc22.src.rpm csnappy.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so csnappy-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint csnappy csnappy-devel csnappy.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so csnappy-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- csnappy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) csnappy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): csnappy(x86-64) glibc-headers(x86-64) Provides -------- csnappy: csnappy csnappy(x86-64) libcsnappy.so()(64bit) csnappy-devel: csnappy-devel csnappy-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- csnappy: /usr/lib64/libcsnappy.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeevt/csnappy/archive/b43c183fdad31be0500a5f2ae022a54a66cb1a3d/csnappy-b43c183fdad31be0500a5f2ae022a54a66cb1a3d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09add981a4e2f4e647a9c87947a35eb0622d72af628bf03d351a2d9d412ec26f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09add981a4e2f4e647a9c87947a35eb0622d72af628bf03d351a2d9d412ec26f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1152057 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
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: csnappy Short Description: Snappy compression library ported to C Upstream URL: https://github.com/zeevt/csnappy Owners: ppisar Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thank you for the review and the repository.
Hi Petr, I would like this module to be available for EPEL6 and EPEL7, so i can build perl-Compress-Snappy for those environments. As always, i would be happy to take responsibility for this if required.
(In reply to David Dick from comment #9) > Hi Petr, > > I would like this module to be available for EPEL6 and EPEL7, so i can build > perl-Compress-Snappy for those environments. As always, i would be happy to > take responsibility for this if required. No problem. Feel free to maintain the package in the EPEL branches.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: csnappy New Branches: el6, epel7 Owners: ddick InitialCC: perl-sig
Correction. Removing perl-sig as CC Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: perl-Number-Format New Branches: epel7 Owners: ddick
Branch exists.
Sorry. Trying again. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: csnappy New Branches: el6, epel7 Owners: ddick