Description of problem: Spec URL: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp.spec SRPM URL: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp-0.1.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8385746 Description: Owl Lisp is a purely functional dialect of Scheme. It is based on the applicable subset of to-be R7RS Scheme standard, with some extensions useful for mutation free operation. Fedora Account System Username:mrniranjan Request to review the package. This package is a dependent package for package radamsa( which is in review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168511)
There was typo in spec file , which has been corrected: specfile and srpm locations are same as specified in above comment. Koji scratch build location: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8385921
rpmlint complained that man page of ovm binary was missing, This has been addressed by upstream: https://code.google.com/p/owl-lisp/issues/detail?id=171 Spec file and srpm location specified in the initial comments have been updated Please find the latest scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8414465
Updated Spec file: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp.spec Updated SRPM: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21.src.rpm
I only had a look at spec file not yet done any scratch build but found some issues to be fixed 1) BuildRequire for gcc is not needed see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 2) Requires: glibc is not needed as well 3) in %install section you don't need following as its automatically get cleaned rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag 4) you don't need now to specify %defattr(-,root,root,-) See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions 5) %clean section is not needed for Fedora packaging. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
Thanks parag: Please find the updated spec file: spec: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp.spec srpm: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21.src.rpm
Please find the scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8462439
=== This is a formal Review ======= Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ===== 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. $ licensecheck LICENCE LICENCE: MIT/X11 (BSD like) [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/prkumar/fedora-scm/1174288-owl- lisp/licensecheck.txt [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@dhcp201-104 /]# rpmlint owl-lisp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@dhcp201-104 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- owl-lisp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- owl-lisp: owl-lisp owl-lisp(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aoh/owl-lisp/archive/v0.1.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd3cf2301ed4ceb029404fc8e62ee64aeff33cc89c069f8156a8408d432da1c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd3cf2301ed4ceb029404fc8e62ee64aeff33cc89c069f8156a8408d432da1c9
One more fix needed. Compilation is not honoring compiler flags as given in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags You need to use in %build as %build make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags} # Fix permissions for -debuginfo rpmlint warning chmod 644 c/ol.c
For permissions to ol.c can you guide me how to fix the error, Do you think if adding the below line to spec file will solve it ? %attr(0644,root,root) /usr/src/debug/owl-lisp-0.1.7/c/ol.c can you help me on this. ?
We don't add source files in %files section in spec file and debuginfo is generated automatically, See /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh To fix the permission I have given in my last comment chmod 644 c/ol.c
Thanks parag, I have updated the source rpm and spec files accordingly: https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp.spec https://mrniranjan.fedorapeople.org/owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8499401
Parag, Could you have a look at the updated spec and srpm.
parag, I did one more python package review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179484
parag, One more package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179350
Package APPROVED. Please follow the instructions from step 7 onwards given on page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: owl-lisp Short Description: Owl Lisp is a purely functional dialect of Scheme. Upstream URL: https://code.google.com/p/owl-lisp Owners: mrniranjan huzaifas Branches: f20 f21 devel InitialCC: huzaifas pjp
Please ignore #comment 16, I did with my redhat bugzilla a/c New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: owl-lisp Short Description: Owl Lisp is a purely functional dialect of Scheme. Upstream URL: https://code.google.com/p/owl-lisp Owners: mrniranjan huzaifas Branches: f20 f21 devel InitialCC: huzaifas pjp
Git done (by process-git-requests).
owl-lisp is now in Rawhide, fedora20 and fedora21 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0662/owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc20 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0649/owl-lisp-0.1.7-2.fc21