Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi-0.9-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Meta build system for Ninja, based on C++11 and boost Fedora Account System Username: raphgro test builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/Shinobi http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8443645
I will take this.
sed script in %build section is not the sane. I think here SHOULD be used patch. What is %{sample} ? How you got this? What do diff in %check section?
(In reply to Ivan Romanov from comment #2) > sed script in %build section is not the sane. I think here SHOULD be used > patch. A patch may neither be of more help here, so I could use my own ninja.build file in complete. Reported with request for configure to upstream: https://github.com/Rapptz/Shinobi/issues/1 > What is %{sample} ? How you got this? > What do diff in %check section? The sample is copied from the README.md file with a little modification cause I think there's a bug. This file should generate a ninja.build file for Shinobi itself, so let's use it as an expectation (renamed reference to be clearer), compare both in %check section to know if shinobi command works and diff will report any error.
Release #2. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi-0.9-2.fc20.src.rpm test builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/Shinobi/build/64643/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 BR diffutils SHOULD be removed. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Manpages Package SHOULD have manpage. Furthemore it console tool. Maybe you should ask upstream to convert references.md to manpage.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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: diffutils See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/1176277-Shinobi/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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 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]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: 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: Shinobi-0.9-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm Shinobi-0.9-2.fc22.src.rpm Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox Shinobi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shinobi Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox Shinobi.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{binary} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint Shinobi Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox Shinobi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shinobi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- Shinobi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-filesystem libboost_filesystem.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- Shinobi: Shinobi Shinobi(x86-64) shinobi Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rapptz/Shinobi/archive/v0.9.tar.gz#/Shinobi-0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 105cd81e3c432c87656d7c04a94377b92990f594c3e7ab91fa6bdd26f0f67378 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 105cd81e3c432c87656d7c04a94377b92990f594c3e7ab91fa6bdd26f0f67378 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1176277 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
# disable case-sensitive search Provides: %{binary} and Shinobi.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{binary} Confuse me. Can it be fixed? Or maybe just remove Provides?
Release #2. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi-0.9-3.fc21.src.rpm test builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/Shinobi/build/65972/
Release #3. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi-0.9-3.fc21.src.rpm test builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/raphgro/Shinobi/build/65972/
Hi Ivan, can you please approve my package?
APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/taurus/1176277-Shinobi/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: 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: Shinobi-0.9-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm Shinobi-0.9-3.fc20.src.rpm Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@lix /]# rpmlint Shinobi Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qmake -> make, quake, q make Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpp -> cop, pp, cps Shinobi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxx -> xxx, xx, cox 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@lix /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- Shinobi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-filesystem libboost_filesystem.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- Shinobi: Shinobi Shinobi(x86-64) s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rapptz/Shinobi/archive/v0.9.tar.gz#/Shinobi-0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 105cd81e3c432c87656d7c04a94377b92990f594c3e7ab91fa6bdd26f0f67378 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 105cd81e3c432c87656d7c04a94377b92990f594c3e7ab91fa6bdd26f0f67378 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1176277 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
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: Shinobi Short Description: Meta build system for Ninja Upstream URL: https://github.com/Rapptz/Shinobi Owners: raphgro Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Shinobi-0.9-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Shinobi-0.9-3.fc21
Packages has *SERVERE* issues and should have **never** get approved…
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ---> build is performed ***WITHOUT*** any CFLAGS nor LDFLAGS!!! [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ---> debuginfo ist empty!!! [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. ---> Compiler / Linker -flags are ***NOT*** applied properly. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ---> timestamps of %doc and %license are modified during %prep. ===== Solution ===== Epic review-fail!
$ ninja-build -d list debugging modes: stats print operation counts/timing info explain explain what caused a command to execute keeprsp don't delete @response files on success multiple modes can be enabled via -d FOO -d BAR Maybe…
From ninja-build.spec … %build CFLAGS="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" \ %{__python2} configure.py --bootstrap --verbose ./ninja -v manual ./ninja -v ninja_test
> Requires > -------- > Shinobi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > boost-filesystem > libboost_filesystem.so.1.55.0()(64bit) > libboost_system.so.1.55.0()(64bit) $ repoquery --whatprovides 'libboost_filesystem.so.1.55.0()(64bit)' boost-filesystem-0:1.55.0-6.fc21.x86_64 boost-filesystem-0:1.55.0-4.fc21.x86_64 Especially notice that an explicit dependency on "boost-filesystem" is not arch-specific and less strict than the automatic dep. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > gzip -c %{binary}.man > %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/%{binary}.1.gz Manual pages are compressed on-the-fly by rpmbuild. Please install them uncompressed and include them in %files with any file extension, so the compression technique may be disabled/customised any time. > %check That sections is executed after %install not after %build. Hence in the spec file is makes more sense to place it after %install, too.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #17) > $ ninja-build -d list > debugging modes: > stats print operation counts/timing info > explain explain what caused a command to execute > keeprsp don't delete @response files on success > multiple modes can be enabled via -d FOO -d BAR > > Maybe… (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #18) > From ninja-build.spec … > > %build > CFLAGS="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" \ > %{__python2} configure.py --bootstrap --verbose > ./ninja -v manual > ./ninja -v ninja_test What is the relation between this review and your comments?
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #20) > What is the relation between this review and your comments? Maybe answers to comment #16. But it turns out to do an RFE against ninja-build, see bug #1179261.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #16) > ---> debuginfo ist empty!!! Well, there's no useful info available. Maybe blame ninja-build or tell me the right options please. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_packaging_issues --- Release #4 Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/Shinobi/Shinobi-0.9-4.fc21.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8543850
Shinobi-0.9-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Shinobi-0.9-4.fc21
Fail. $ rpmbuild -bb Shinobi.spec ... [1/3] g++ -MMD -MF obj/shinobi.o.d -std=c++11 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wextra -Wall -O2 -DNDEBUG -c shinobi.cpp -o obj/shinobi.o -I. -I/usr/include/boost [2/3] g++ -MMD -MF obj/util/parser.o.d -std=c++11 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Wextra -Wall -O2 -DNDEBUG -c util/parser.cpp -o obj/util/parser.o -I. -I/usr/include/boost [3/3] g++ obj/shinobi.o obj/util/parser.o -o shinobi -lboost_system -lboost_filesystem
Shinobi-0.9-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Shinobi-0.9-5.fc21
Shinobi-0.9-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
Björn, I looked to the latest .spec and did local rpmbuild test so seems now issue with flags is resolved. Can be package approved now?
Ivan, you have to set review-granted cause you are the reviewer according to the normal process. Otherwise you (or I) may remove the ownership, unfortunately. I do not want to orphan the package! Thanks for your help. Also at Björn.
(In reply to Ivan Romanov from comment #27) > Björn, I looked to the latest .spec and did local rpmbuild test so seems now > issue with flags is resolved. Can be package approved now? Sure! You can set review-flag to (+) now and clear the needinfo-flag… Bodhi will close the bug then, when recent Shinobi-build hits stable.
Shinobi-0.9-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.