Spec URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev.spec SRPM URL: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev-0.8.8-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: With this program and libraries you can easily create mock udev objects. This is useful for writing tests for software which talks to hardware devices. Fedora Account System Username: hadess
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9580568
Package Review ============== Just some easy things to fix. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in umockdev See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries - RPath should be removed from the binary See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath - License field is LGPLv3+, but the license headers and COPYING seem to be LGPLv2+ - License text must use %license, not %doc See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Optional: ========= - Fully versioned requires (from the -devel to the main package) are recommended - The Python dependency is only required (according to configure.ac) for extra tests during "make check", but there is no %check section in the package. I would either drop the dependency or enable make check - Preserve timestamps during install with INSTALL="install -p" - Use pkgconfig for BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1215807-umockdev/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gir-1.0, /usr/share /gtk-doc, /usr/share/vala/vapi, /usr/share/gtk-doc/html, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0, /usr/share/vala [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. [-]: 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 71680 bytes in 5 files. [!]: 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 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in umockdev- devel [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: 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: umockdev-0.8.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm umockdev-devel-0.8.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm umockdev-0.8.8-1.fc23.src.rpm umockdev.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udev -> dude umockdev.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/umockdev-run ['/usr/lib64'] umockdev.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libumockdev-preload.so.0.0.0 exit.5 umockdev.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libumockdev-preload.so.0.0.0 umockdev.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libumockdev-preload.so.0.0.0 umockdev.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libumockdev.so.0.3.0 umockdev.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libumockdev.so.0.3.0 umockdev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary umockdev-wrapper umockdev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary umockdev-run umockdev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary umockdev-record umockdev-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib umockdev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US udev -> dude 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- umockdev (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgudev-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libumockdev.so.0()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) umockdev-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig(glib-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) umockdev Provides -------- umockdev: libumockdev-preload.so.0()(64bit) libumockdev.so.0()(64bit) umockdev umockdev(x86-64) umockdev-devel: pkgconfig(umockdev-1.0) umockdev-devel umockdev-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://launchpad.net/umockdev/trunk/0.8.8/+download/umockdev-0.8.8.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51fb5f81d895f99c3a3d81a18356db7e6d2cd075732477d8d4be4ffd97817e3f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51fb5f81d895f99c3a3d81a18356db7e6d2cd075732477d8d4be4ffd97817e3f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1215807 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
> Issues: > ======= > - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in umockdev > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries Done. > - RPath should be removed from the binary > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath Done. > - License field is LGPLv3+, but the license headers and COPYING seem to be > LGPLv2+ Done. > - License text must use %license, not %doc > See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text First time I hear of it. Done. > Optional: > ========= > - Fully versioned requires (from the -devel to the main package) are > recommended That's already done, no? > - The Python dependency is only required (according to configure.ac) for > extra tests during "make check", but there is no %check section in the > package. I would either drop the dependency or enable make check Done. > - Preserve timestamps during install with INSTALL="install -p" Done. > - Use pkgconfig for BuildRequires > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires Probably should have when I started it, but I'm not sure that's necessary now. I'll bear it in mind for future packages. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9595251 Spec: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev.spec SRPM: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev-0.8.8-2.fc22.src.rpm
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #3) > > - License text must use %license, not %doc > > See: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > First time I hear of it. Done. Yeah, it is a new guideline that came in this development cycle. I think that you mixed up %doc and %license, as you put COPYING in %doc, and README.rst in %license. > > Optional: > > ========= > > - Fully versioned requires (from the -devel to the main package) are > > recommended > > That's already done, no? Sorry, I should have been more specific. For the -devel subpackage, rather that "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" you should (it's optional) have "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" (note the extra "%{?_isa}". Approving, on the basis that you will fix the %license/%doc mixup.
(In reply to David King from comment #4) > Sorry, I should have been more specific. For the -devel subpackage, rather > that "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" you should (it's optional) > have "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" (note the extra > "%{?_isa}". Whoops, it turns out this is a must, not a should, according to the guidelines (and in the specific case of -devel subpackages): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Spec: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev.spec SRPM: https://hadess.fedorapeople.org/umockdev/umockdev-0.8.8-3.fc22.src.rpm
Looks good to me!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: umockdev Short Description: Mock hardware devices Upstream URL: https://launchpad.net/umockdev Owners: hadess Branches: f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
umockdev-0.8.8-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/umockdev-0.8.8-3.fc22
umockdev-0.8.8-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
umockdev-0.8.8-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.