Spec URL: http://rossl.org/junk/libnfs.spec SRPM URL: http://rossl.org/junk/libnfs-1.9.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The libnfs package contains a library of functions for accessing NFSv2 and NFSv3 servers from user space. It provides a low-level, asynchronous RPC library for accessing NFS protocols, an asynchronous library with POSIX-like VFS functions, and a synchronous library with POSIX-like VFS functions. This is my first package, and I need a sponsor. libnfs would be useful to have in Fedora because gvfs now has support for nfs shares using libnfs. I am one of the upstream maintainers of gvfs and added the nfs support. In the process, I contributed a fair amount to libnfs. Link to koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9109706 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9109717 Fedora Account System Username: rosslagerwall
> Name: libnfs > Group: Development/Libraries Base library packages have been in group "System Environment/Libraries" for many years. The group "Development/Libraries" is for -devel packages, i.e. the separate build-time packages. Nowadays, the Group tag is optional: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag > License: LGPLv2+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Upstream ought to include the LGPL terms, especially since the documentation (in file COPYING) refers to both the LGPL and the GPL v3 for the examples. > rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_bindir} > rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_mandir} Deleting files without explanation is not good style. What's the reason why you delete the files? > %files devel > %{_libdir}/libnfs.so > %{_includedir}/nfsc/* Package /usr/include/nfsc is not included. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories > Link to koji builds: Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this. It can be very helpful for new packagers: fedora-review -b 1197505
Thanks for the review! (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #1) > > Name: libnfs > > Group: Development/Libraries > > Base library packages have been in group "System Environment/Libraries" for > many years. The group "Development/Libraries" is for -devel packages, i.e. > the separate build-time packages. > > Nowadays, the Group tag is optional: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag OK, removed. > > > > License: LGPLv2+ > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > Upstream ought to include the LGPL terms, especially since the documentation > (in file COPYING) refers to both the LGPL and the GPL v3 for the examples. OK. I've set the main package's license to LGPLv2+ and BSD since this is more accurate and also included COPYING in the package. I've sent a pull request so that upstream includes the license terms: https://github.com/sahlberg/libnfs/pull/114 > > > > rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_bindir} > > rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_mandir} > > Deleting files without explanation is not good style. What's the reason why > you delete the files? OK. It now builds a libnfs-utils package that includes these files. > > > > %files devel > > %{_libdir}/libnfs.so > > %{_includedir}/nfsc/* > > Package /usr/include/nfsc is not included. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories Fixed. > > > > Link to koji builds: > > Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at review tickets like this. It can > be very helpful for new packagers: fedora-review -b 1197505 Thanks for pointing this out. Updated files: Spec URL: https://rossl.org/junk/v2/libnfs.spec SRPM URL: https://rossl.org/junk/v2/libnfs-1.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9359835
Self review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text COPYING is included in %license. ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ross/newrv/review-libnfs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 1 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]: 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: [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. (A pull request has been sent.) [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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: libnfs-1.9.7-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm libnfs-devel-1.9.7-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm libnfs-utils-1.9.7-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm libnfs-1.9.7-2.fc23.src.rpm libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I think both of these are spurious. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- libnfs-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libnfs(x86-64) libnfs.so.8()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnfs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnfs(x86-64) Provides -------- libnfs-utils: libnfs-utils libnfs-utils(x86-64) libnfs: libnfs libnfs(x86-64) libnfs.so.8()(64bit) libnfs-devel: libnfs-devel libnfs-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnfs) Source checksums ---------------- https://sites.google.com/site/libnfstarballs/li/libnfs-1.9.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f4fa071de1a8b15f0160a5414fcf4fbbfc4882de1f6758cf3c4187aec68b3f68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4fa071de1a8b15f0160a5414fcf4fbbfc4882de1f6758cf3c4187aec68b3f68 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libnfs -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
(In reply to Ross Lagerwall from comment #2) > Thanks for the review! > > (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment > #1) > > > License: LGPLv2+ > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > > Upstream ought to include the LGPL terms, especially since the documentation > > (in file COPYING) refers to both the LGPL and the GPL v3 for the examples. > > OK. I've set the main package's license to LGPLv2+ and BSD since this is > more accurate and also included COPYING in the package. I've sent a pull > request so that upstream includes the license terms: > https://github.com/sahlberg/libnfs/pull/114 > This has now been fixed upstream (but not in the current released version).
> libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib That's some bug in the fedora-review tool. Probably it cannot handle the .so symlink. > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation It's just a warning, and often those are irrelevant, but the libnfs headers only contain very brief comments, if at all. There is no API documentation. The README points at individual example source files, which are not packaged [yet]. I'm not aware of any packaging guidelines for this scenario. There's only the "should" from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation | Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should | be included in the package in the proper documentation directory. Source files are not really documentation, but if treating examples as documentation, for libnfs, that could mean anything such as shipping the examples' C sources in -devel %doc (the thing I'd find reasonable) or even creating a GPLv3+ -examples subpackage (that would be overhead IMO). Sure, the src.rpm will be available, too, but referring to the examples without packaging them is a minor flaw. What's your opinion on that? [...] I've checked for conflicts of /usr/bin/nfs-ls, /usr/include/nfsc/ and %_libdir/libnfs.so\* [...] The package passes review. APPROVED
*** Bug 1245930 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #5) > > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > That's some bug in the fedora-review tool. Probably it cannot handle the .so > symlink. > > > > libnfs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > It's just a warning, and often those are irrelevant, but the libnfs headers > only contain very brief comments, if at all. There is no API documentation. > > The README points at individual example source files, which are not packaged > [yet]. > > I'm not aware of any packaging guidelines for this scenario. There's only > the "should" from > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation > > | Any relevant documentation included in the source distribution should > | be included in the package in the proper documentation directory. > > Source files are not really documentation, but if treating examples as > documentation, for libnfs, that could mean anything such as shipping the > examples' C sources in -devel %doc (the thing I'd find reasonable) or even > creating a GPLv3+ -examples subpackage (that would be overhead IMO). > > Sure, the src.rpm will be available, too, but referring to the examples > without packaging them is a minor flaw. > > What's your opinion on that? > Yes, I think that putting the examples' C sources in -devel %doc would be the best approach. So should I do that when adding the package to the SCM system?
Either that -- as a first opportunity to get to know dist git -- or add them to the src.rpm you use when importing with the fedpkg tool.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libnfs Short Description: Client library for accessing NFS shares over a network Upstream URL: https://github.com/sahlberg/libnfs Owners: rosslagerwall Branches: f21 f22 f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Hello, Are they plans to make libnfs available for F22 and F23?
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b520e9cc25
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d53d1a3547
Yes, I've submitted updates for F22 and F23.
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update libnfs' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-d53d1a3547
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update libnfs' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b520e9cc25
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.