Spec URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/toolshed.spec SRPM URL: https://linville.fedorapeople.org/toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: ToolShed is a package of utilities to perform cross-development from Windows, Linux or Mac OS X computers to the Tandy Color Computer and Dragon microcomputers. Tools are included to read/write both OS-9 RBF disk images and CoCo Disk BASIC disk images, create WAV and CAS files and much more. Fedora Account System Username: linville
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [N/A]: 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 ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 211 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1214002-toolshed/licensecheck.txt NH: license is listed on sourceforge site: http://sourceforge.net/projects/toolshed/ [N/A]: 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. [N/A]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [N/A]: 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. NH Nit: Not sure if the release tag is kosher. Snapshot package guidelines indicate only the short form SHA1 sum. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [N/A]: 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. [N/A]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. []: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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. ===== 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. NH: John, I think you mentioned sending a note about this correct? [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 toolshed- doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [N/A]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments NH: Documentation describes reasoning properly [N/A]: 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. NH: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9549149 [N/A]: %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]: 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. (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm toolshed-doc-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.noarch.rpm toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc20.src.rpm toolshed.x86_64: W: no-documentation toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary os9 toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ar2 toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cocofuse toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mamou toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary decb toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tocgen toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary makewav toolshed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cecb toolshed.src: W: strange-permission generate-tarball.sh 0755L toolshed.src: W: invalid-url Source0: toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-noroms.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- toolshed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfuse.so.2()(64bit) libfuse.so.2(FUSE_2.6)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) toolshed-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): toolshed Provides -------- toolshed: toolshed toolshed(x86-64) toolshed-doc: toolshed-doc ====NH Comments==== Looks pretty good, I'm not opposed to the release tag as it is, but if you want to shorten it, thats fine with me. Only outstanding question I have is have you contacted upstream about documenting the Public Domain License in the code. If you have, this is an ACK from me
Regarding the release tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages "Snapshot packages contain data about where the snapshot came from as well as ordering information for rpm. The information about the snapshot will be called %{checkout} in this section. %{checkout} consists of the date that the snapshot is made in YYYYMMDD format, a short (2-5 characters) string identifying the type of revision control system or that this is a snapshot, and optionally, up to 13 characters (ASCII) alphanumeric characters that could be useful in finding the revision in the revision control system." So, I think that while 20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe is ugly, it meets the guidelines. :-) Regarding the license documentation: I met with the primary developer of the package this weekend and explained the desire for more thorough licene documentation. However, he mostly shrugged off the concern and pointed-out that the code has been marked as Public Domain on Sourceforge for roughly 15 years, with no complaints from anyone. I don't expect that they will take any action on that issue. :-(
Ok, then you've met the requirements. review + set, you're good to go.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: toolshed Short Description: Cross-development toolkit for use with the Tandy Color Computer Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/toolshed/ Owners: linville Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: linville
Git done (by process-git-requests).
toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22
toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21
toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
toolshed-20150416hg6f0dcb7087fe-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.