Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW-2.11.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The C++ Broker is a port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++. The current version implements all the functionality for the local side. Meaning if you will just use the Broker on a single machine you should be fine using the C++ Broker. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter Together with libSBML and libSEDML, libSBW is a library useful to compile COPASI biochemical network simulator (coming soon).
> %files devel > %{_libdir}/%{name}.so > %{_libdir}/%{name}-static.a Case "1." here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1) > > %files devel > > %{_libdir}/%{name}.so > > %{_libdir}/%{name}-static.a > > Case "1." here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries Okay. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW-2.11.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-3.fc21.src.rpm Static file packaged again; the binary file seems directly linked to it.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #0) > Description: > The C++ Broker is a port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to > C++. > The current version implements all the functionality for the local side. > Meaning if you will just use the Broker on a single machine you should be > fine using the C++ Broker. This description is very vague. What is a Broker? Why would I want to use this package? What is "the original SBW Broker"? This description assumes too much familiarity with SBW and the fact that its Broker is "a broker-based, distributed, message-passing architecture". Also, shouldn't the -devel package have a different description, saying it has the headers and libraries for libsbw?
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #0) > > Description: > > The C++ Broker is a port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to > > C++. > > The current version implements all the functionality for the local side. > > Meaning if you will just use the Broker on a single machine you should be > > fine using the C++ Broker. > > This description is very vague. What is a Broker? Why would I want to use > this package? What is "the original SBW Broker"? > > This description assumes too much familiarity with SBW and the fact that its > Broker is "a broker-based, distributed, message-passing architecture". > > > Also, shouldn't the -devel package have a different description, saying it > has the headers and libraries for libsbw? You're right. I will fix description.
Update?
- Update to svn post-release #579 - Packaged Broker manpage Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-4.fc21.src.rpm
tar --exclude-vcs ftw, and s/sbml/sbw/ in the checkout description. src.rpm seems to be missing, building from spec file locally. Taking the review.
Why is static library packaged? Guidelines say that "In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists." If you want to still package it, -static subpackage should be separate from -devel. [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2] libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The Systems Biology Workbench(SBW) is a framework for application intercommunications. libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It uses a broker-based, distributed, message-passing architecture, supports many languages libsbw-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libSBW is the C++ Broker port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++. Please also add a space before "(SBW)". I think the description of -devel can be trimmed to refer to the main package. There still are bundled files, see below. Once they are removed, the license will match. ===== 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. BSD. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 105 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review- libsbw/licensecheck.txt sbw-core/include/iconv.h is a bundled copy of /usr/include/iconv.h. Should be removed in %prep. sbw-core/include/libcharset.h and sbw-core/include/localcharset.h seems to come from charset library, whatever that is. They should be removed in %prep too. Those headers define libcharset_set_relocation_prefix and locale_charset, neither which seems to be used. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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 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: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libsbw-devel. [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [-]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libsbw-2.11.1-4.20150414svn579.fc23.x86_64.rpm libsbw-devel-2.11.1-4.20150414svn579.fc23.x86_64.rpm libsbw-2.11.1-4.20150414svn579.fc23.src.rpm libsbw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intercommunications -> intercommunication, intercommunication's, inter communications libsbw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US informations -> information, information's, in formations libsbw-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intercommunications -> intercommunication, intercommunication's, inter communications libsbw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsbw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intercommunications -> intercommunication, intercommunication's, inter communications libsbw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US informations -> information, information's, in formations libsbw.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libsbw-svn579.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 7 warnings. Nothing interesting here. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsbw-debuginfo-2.11.1-4.20150414svn579.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libsbw-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intercommunications -> intercommunication, intercommunication's, inter communications libsbw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsbw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intercommunications -> intercommunication, intercommunication's, inter communications libsbw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US informations -> information, information's, in formations libsbw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libSBW.so.2.11.1 /lib64/libxml2.so.2 libsbw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libSBW.so.2.11.1 /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- libsbw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libSBW.so.2.11()(64bit) libsbw(x86-64) libsbw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libsbw-devel: libsbw-devel libsbw-devel(x86-64) libsbw-static libsbw: libSBW.so.2.11()(64bit) libsbw libsbw(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libsbw 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
> port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++. I'd also change that to say Java, there's no reason for it to be uppercase.
Static library may be needed to COPASI. I will remove it next time if not necessary. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #12) > Static library may be needed to COPASI. I will remove it next time if not > necessary. OK. But it still needs a separate package. Can you remove the other two header files in %prep too? > https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm This gives 404.
>OK. But it still needs a separate package. > >Can you remove the other two header files in %prep too? > >> https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-5.fc21.src.rpm >This gives 404. Sorry, i'm doing more things in the same time Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-6.fc22.src.rpm
libsbw-static must require libsbw-devel because it's not usable on it's own (missing headers).
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libsbw-2.11.1-7.fc22.src.rpm
No more issues. Package is APPROVED.
Thank you very much. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libsbw Short Description: C++ Broker library Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sbw/ Owners: sagitter Branches: f22
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libsbw-2.11.1-7.20150414svn579.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsbw-2.11.1-7.20150414svn579.fc22
libsbw-2.11.1-7.20150414svn579.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
libsbw-2.11.1-7.20150414svn579.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.