Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-1.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm Description: INDI driver using gPhoto to add support for many cameras to INDI. This includes many DSLR, e.g. Canon or Nikon. Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Hi, I started to package some INDI drivers (enhancing the libindi package). Thank you for review in advance! Greetings Christian
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm
hi! Please inform upstream about the incorrect FSF-address in OPYING.LIB Everything else looks fine :-) Cheers, Flo Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: There is no build directory. [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. [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 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: [-]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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=7910617 [-]: %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]: 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. [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: indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc22.x86_64.rpm indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc22.src.rpm indi-gphoto.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/indi-gphoto/COPYING.LIB indi-gphoto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_gphoto_ccd indi-gphoto.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/indi-gphoto/INSTALL indi-gphoto.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{revision} indi-gphoto.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{driver} indi-gphoto.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-gphoto.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-gphoto.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-gphoto.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-gphoto.src:57: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout} indi-gphoto.src:60: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout} indi-gphoto.src:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 21) indi-gphoto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: indi-gphoto-0.9.9.20141015svn1783.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint indi-gphoto indi-gphoto.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/indi-gphoto/COPYING.LIB indi-gphoto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_gphoto_ccd indi-gphoto.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/indi-gphoto/INSTALL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- indi-gphoto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dcraw libc.so.6()(64bit) libcfitsio.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgphoto2.so.6()(64bit) libgphoto2_port.so.10()(64bit) libgphoto2_port.so.10(LIBGPHOTO2_5_0)(64bit) libindidriver.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- indi-gphoto: indi-gphoto indi-gphoto(x86-64) 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 1152966 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 ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
Thank you very much for your review :) I'll inform upstream about the wrong FSF address. Greetings, Christian
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: indi-gphoto Short Description: INDI driver providing support for gPhoto Upstream URL: http://indilib.org/ Owners: lupinix Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21
Informed upstream about wrong FSF address http://sourceforge.net/p/indi/mailman/message/32951616/
indi-gphoto-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #2) > [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Why is this "not applicable"? A brief look at the -debuginfo package reveals that it contains no sources, and if rpmlint had been run against it, it would also have reported it: | $ rpmlint -i ./indi-gphoto-debuginfo-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc22.x86_64.rpm | indi-gphoto-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources | This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. | This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during | the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often | is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security | consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo | extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not | unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. Looking at the build log it is clear that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not being used, and as rpmlint mentions, that's not only a debuginfo issue but also a potential security one. In this case the problem is in the upstream CMakeLists.txt, will attach a patch, please submit it upstream.
Created attachment 950603 [details] Don't override user set CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS
(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #10) > Created attachment 950603 [details] > Don't override user set CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS Thank you for your investigation! I will submit the patch upstream. Greetings, Christian
Done :) https://sourceforge.net/p/indi/bugs/55/
Good, but remember also to ship an update for the Fedora builds, this should not wait for upstream action...
indi-gphoto-0.9.9-3.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-3.20141015svn1783.fc21
Done
indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21
Package indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13633/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: indi-gphoto New Branches: f20 Owners: lupinix InitialCC: With new libindi release in f20 this package can be imported in f20 too :)