Spec URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/speexdsp.spec SRPM URL: https://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/speexdsp-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.src.rpm Description: Speex is a patent-free compression format designed especially for speech. It is specialized for voice communications at low bit-rates in the 2-45 kbps range. Possible applications include Voice over IP (VoIP), Internet audio streaming, audio books, and archiving of speech data (e.g. voice mail). This is the DSP package, see the speex package for the codec part. Fedora Account System Username: amigadave
As a bit of explanation, this package is split from the "speex" package. For more details on that, see my comments in bug 117820.
- Better if you use --disable-silent-rules with configure. make log is too silent. - There is a PDF documentation file that can be packaged. - Use %license to list COPYING.
%license is not mentioned in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines it seems, so I would rather follow the guidelines and use %doc. The PDF is also removed from the speex package, and I would prefer to follow that behaviour. make V=1 is a bit nicer than --disable-silent-rules, so I updated the .spec and .src.rpm in place.
Your package can't be currently built in rawhide: Transaction check error: DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/lib/libspeexdsp.so.1.5.0 from install of speex-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/include/speex/speex_echo.h from install of speex-devel-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-devel-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/include/speex/speex_jitter.h from install of speex-devel-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-devel-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/include/speex/speex_preprocess.h from install of speex-devel-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-devel-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/include/speex/speex_resampler.h from install of speex-devel-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-devel-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 DEBUG util.py:366: file /usr/lib/pkgconfig/speexdsp.pc from install of speex-devel-1.2-0.21.rc1.fc22.i686 conflicts with file from package speexdsp-devel-1.2-0.1.rc2.fc22.i686 Is not there any solution from fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts?
I just added "Conflicts: speex-devel <= 1.2-0.21.rc1" to the speexdsp-devel package, and updated the spec and .src.rpm in place. It will not be possible to install (not build) speexdsp simultaneously with speex until the speex package is split, which is covered by bug 1172820.
Please, fix mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning. 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in statismo- doc , statismo-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). rpmlint: speexdsp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Speex -> Speer, Speed, Perspex speexdsp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes speexdsp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib speexdsp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation speexdsp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Speex -> Speer, Speed, Perspex speexdsp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps -> bps, kips, k bps speexdsp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes speexdsp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libspeexdsp.so.1.5.0 exit.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. ... speexdsp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Speex -> Speer, Speed, Perspex speexdsp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps -> bps, kips, k bps speexdsp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US speex -> speed, perspex speexdsp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes speexdsp.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks! I fixed the tabs-vs-spaces warning, again updating the files in place. I will wait for confirmation from the speex maintainer for the package split in bug 1172820 before filing the SCM request.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: speexdsp Short Description: A voice compression format (DSP) Upstream URL: http://www.speex.org/ Owners: amigadave mlichvar Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Pushed and built for Rawhide. Thanks very much for the review Antonio! If you ever need someone to review one of your package requests, please feel free to ask me.