Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2-1.1.8-0.fc21.src.rpm Description: The ticalcs library is a library which brings about all the functions needed to communicate with a Texas Instruments graphing calculator (or hand-held). Currently, it does not support some education devices (such as CBL/CBR and others). This library is able to communicate with handhelds in a fairly transparent fashion. With this library, the developer does not have to worry about the packet oriented protocol, the file management and some other stuff. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 A general disclaimer: there's a lot of changelog at the bottom of this spec file. That's because two years ago (approximately), I was not a sponsored Fedora packager and the tilp2 software and its libraries were not compliant with Fedora packaging guidelines. I wrote these spec files and worked with the maintainers to fix these issues. Now that the major problems have been fixed, I'd like to try to actually get these RPMs into Fedora.
Dependencies have been built. I have also taken all of the fixes from their reviews (localization, docs subpackage, test suite, etc.) and added them to this spec: Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2-1.1.8-1.fc21.src.rpm
> make -C po fr.gmo is failed: + make -C po fr.gmo make: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticalcs2-1.1.8/po' rm -f fr.gmo && : -c --statistics -o fr.gmo fr.po mv: cannot stat 't-fr.gmo': No such file or directory Makefile:163: recipe for target 'fr.gmo' failed make: *** [fr.gmo] Error 1
Whoops. Looks like the gettext dependency was missing from the BuildRequires. It should work now; I confirmed it builds in mock. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2-1.1.8-2.fc21.src.rpm
- To me, 'make -C docs install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' is redundant; you could manage all documentation by using %doc macro. - Also, 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' already installs fr.po make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/libticalcs2-1.1.8/po' /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libticalcs2-1.1.8-2.fc23.i386/usr/share installing fr.gmo as /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libticalcs2-1.1.8-2.fc23.i386/usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/libticalcs2.mo You could patch 'make' and permit that %find_lang script works; you won't obliged to list explicitely %lang(fr) %{_datadir}/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/libticalcs2.mo - Why do you use %define instead of %global ? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/libticalcs2.mo See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1186557-libticalcs2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/libticalcs2 [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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [?]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 libticalcs2-doc [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define tilp_version 1.17 [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: libticalcs2-1.1.8-2.fc23.i686.rpm libticalcs2-devel-1.1.8-2.fc23.i686.rpm libticalcs2-doc-1.1.8-2.fc23.noarch.rpm libticalcs2-1.1.8-2.fc23.src.rpm libticalcs2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticalcs -> tactical libticalcs2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticalcs2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticalcs -> ballistics libticalcs2-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libticalcs2-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libticalcs2/html/style.css libticalcs2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticalcs -> tactical libticalcs2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libticalcs2-debuginfo-1.1.8-2.fc23.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libticalcs2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticalcs -> tactical libticalcs2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticalcs2-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticalcs -> ballistics libticalcs2-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libticalcs2-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libticalcs2/html/style.css 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- libticalcs2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libglib-2.0.so.0 libticables2.so.6 libticonv.so.7 libtifiles2.so.9 rtld(GNU_HASH) libticalcs2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libticalcs2(x86-32) libticalcs2.so.11 pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(ticables2) pkgconfig(tifiles2) libticalcs2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libticalcs2: libticalcs2 libticalcs2(x86-32) libticalcs2.so.11 libticalcs2-devel: libticalcs2-devel libticalcs2-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(ticalcs2) libticalcs2-doc: libticalcs2-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/files/tilp2-linux/tilp2-1.17/libticalcs2-1.1.8.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8286f8a2552bcad96beab99ce254e67b3dc1a03eb9d82f8de4bdf7b8efc3496 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8286f8a2552bcad96beab99ce254e67b3dc1a03eb9d82f8de4bdf7b8efc3496 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1186557 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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
> - To me, 'make -C docs install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' > is redundant; you could manage all documentation by using %doc macro. This solution arose as a way to correctly split the documentation files between packages; attempting to specify relative paths in %doc caused the documentation to get included in both the main package and the *-doc subpackage. By installing into %{_pkgdocdir} and then specifying what files to include using fixed paths, it worked. There was some FPC discussion about this around the time I was packaging libtifiles2, I seem to recall. This updated documentation guideline was the result: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation "Marking a relative path with %doc in the %files section will cause RPM to copy the referenced file or directory from %_builddir to the proper location for documentation. Files can also be placed in %_pkgdocdir, and the build scripts of the software being packaged may do this automatically when called in %install. However, mixing these methods is problematic and may result in duplicated or conflicting files, so use of %doc with relative paths and installation of files directly into %_pkgdocdir in the same source package is forbidden." I am not sure why this is not possible in this specific instance, granted. But I sort of decided "this works, may as well go with it..." > - Also, 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' already installs fr.po Oops! I forgot to remove the %lang(fr) macro, but remembered to add the %find_lang call. I've removed the duplicate definition and - Why do you use %define instead of %global ? Because I forgot to replace the %define that was there with a %global once I learned the correct thing to do. :) Fixed! Re-uploaded. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2-1.1.8-3.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #5) > > - To me, 'make -C docs install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' > > is redundant; you could manage all documentation by using %doc macro. > > This solution arose as a way to correctly split the documentation files > between packages; attempting to specify relative paths in %doc caused the > documentation to get included in both the main package and the *-doc > subpackage. That's because docs are installed with the main 'make install'. > > By installing into %{_pkgdocdir} and then specifying what files to include > using fixed paths, it worked. > > There was some FPC discussion about this around the time I was packaging > libtifiles2, I seem to recall. This updated documentation guideline was the > result: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > "Marking a relative path with %doc in the %files section will cause RPM to > copy the referenced file or directory from %_builddir to the proper location > for documentation. Files can also be placed in %_pkgdocdir, and the build > scripts of the software being packaged may do this automatically when called > in %install. However, mixing these methods is problematic and may result in > duplicated or conflicting files, so use of %doc with relative paths and > installation of files directly into %_pkgdocdir in the same source package > is forbidden." Indeed: "mixing these methods is problematic and forbidden" Try this: .. %install make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libticalcs2.la rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}/html %find_lang %{name} %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig %files -f %{name}.lang %{_libdir}/libticalcs2.so.* %doc README AUTHORS ChangeLog %license COPYING %files doc %doc docs/html README AUTHORS ChangeLog %license COPYING ..
Oh, derp... not sure why I didn't realize that. That works, thanks! Reuploaded once again. Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc21.src.rpm
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Package approved.
Thanks for the review! :) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libticalcs2 Short Description: Texas Instruments calculator communication library Upstream URL: https://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/ Owners: tc01 Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc21
libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc22
libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
libticalcs2-1.1.8-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.