Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-aagcloudwatcher.spec SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm Description: INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher Fedora Account System Username: lupinix Koji Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7940425 Hi, created a package adding support for one more astronomical device to Fedoras set of INDI packages :) fedora-review shows no obvious issues. Thank you for review in advance! Greetings, Christian
> # Post-Release checkout containing some improvements > Release: 1.%{checkout}%{?dist} You should better use a timestamp additionally for a snapshot release independently of pre/post-release logic. Cause if your checkout changes, you would have to increase the main number also: Release: 1.20141025svn%{checkout}%{?dist} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > %install > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %make_install Please comment why you prefer DESTDIR usage. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > > # Post-Release checkout containing some improvements > > Release: 1.%{checkout}%{?dist} > You should better use a timestamp additionally for a snapshot release > independently of pre/post-release logic. Cause if your checkout changes, you > would have to increase the main number also: > Release: 1.20141025svn%{checkout}%{?dist} > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > You didn't really read and understand the spec, %{checkout} contains the timestamp as well as the revision exactly in same format you want to see here... > > > %install > > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > %make_install > Please comment why you prefer DESTDIR usage. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_. > 25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used I cite your link "Instead, Fedora packages should use: %make_install (Note the "_" !), make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install or make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install. Those all do the same thing." So the spec is fine in this case ;)
Please tell me if you would like to fix any of my hints. Otherwise, this review is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ++ = remarks ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. ++ If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. Please do so. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/1156657-indi-aagcloudwatcher/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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. [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. What does "consistently" mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. [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. ++ Consider here that it does not build for F20. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ++ Please do so. See also doubled Remark above. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ++ I dont have INDI stuff locally to test. So I have to trust the maintainer for functionality or potential users to file bugs in the future. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ++ Again: Please ask upstream to provide a proper GPL text file. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ++ Check OK [-]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ++ Maybe call aagcloudwatcher_test in %check? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc20.x86_64.rpm indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm indi-aagcloudwatcher.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aagcloudwatcher_test indi-aagcloudwatcher.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_aagcloudwatcher indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{revision} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{driver} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src:49: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout} indi-aagcloudwatcher.src: W: invalid-url Source0: indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9.20141025svn1784.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. ++ OK (see comments above) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint indi-aagcloudwatcher indi-aagcloudwatcher.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aagcloudwatcher_test indi-aagcloudwatcher.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_aagcloudwatcher 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ++ OK Requires -------- indi-aagcloudwatcher (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libindidriver.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- indi-aagcloudwatcher: indi-aagcloudwatcher indi-aagcloudwatcher(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1156657 Buildroot used: fedora-20-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
Thank you for your fast review Raphael :) (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > [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 the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the > packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. > Please do so. The package contains a copy of the GPLv3+ in LICENXE.txt > [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes > and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. > What does "consistently" mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential > upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. I can change this if neccessary (you mean the sed command i think) > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > ++ Consider here that it does not build for F20. ExcludeArch means something like "doesn't build for i686", not the Fedora release. > [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > ++ Please do so. See also doubled Remark above. See above, LICENSE.txt contains the complete GPLv3 > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [?]: Package functions as described. > ++ I dont have INDI stuff locally to test. So I have to trust the maintainer > for functionality or potential users to file bugs in the future. I tested it. > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. > ++ Maybe call aagcloudwatcher_test in %check? This binary checks if the device is connected properly. Not a check in sense of %check section in spec. Greetings, Christian
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #4) > Thank you for your fast review Raphael :) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > > > [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 the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the > > packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. > > Please do so. > > The package contains a copy of the GPLv3+ in LICENXE.txt > > > [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > > names). > > ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes > > and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. > > What does "consistently" mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential > > upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. > > I can change this if neccessary (you mean the sed command i think) > I had another review in mind (indi-sx), so please explain where I miss usage of macros.
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #5) > I had another review in mind (indi-sx), so please explain where I miss usage > of macros. Yeah, I was confused too. Sorry for any misunderstanding. ACCEPT
Thanks again for the fast review :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: indi-aagcloudwatcher Short Description: INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher Upstream URL: http://indilib.org/ Owners: lupinix Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc21
I am wondering: Is no udev intervention necessary here like for indi-sx? > # For Fedora we want to put udev rules in %{_udevrulesdir}/ > sed -i 's|/lib/udev|/usr/lib/udev|g' CMakeLists.txt
No, this driver doesn't contain and require any udev stuff ;) Otherwise it would contain it ;)
indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
indi-aagcloudwatcher-0.9.9-1.20141025svn1784.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: indi-aagcloudwatcher New Branches: f20 Owners: lupinix InitialCC: With new libindi release in f20 this package can be imported in f20 too :)