Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/compat-gnutls28.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/compat-gnutls28-3.3.14-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This package is meant to go out together with gnutls 3.4 rebase in rawhide that bumps its soname. Fedora Account System Username: kalev
For reference, here's the diff to the current gnutls package: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/216154 I'd like to keep the diff to the original package down to the minimum in order to be able to easily share fixes when needed, so if possible please don't pick on the indentation and things like that that are also present in the original gnutls package. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9585502
If the package is for 3rd party packages which may depend on gnutls, shouldn't it provide gnutls < 3.4.0?
I don't think the gnutls virtual provide would make sense here. At best it is unnecessary, since the gnutls package itself already satisfies any deps on "gnutls". At worst, it can lead to weird depsolving issues. Rpm packages that are linked with the older ABI get automatic requires on the libgnutls.so.28 virtual provide, which the new compat package would satisfy. Due to this libgnutls.so.28 virtual dep in dependant packages, as soon as gnutls 3.4 and the new compat package are built, packages in rawhide automatically switch over to using the compat package. When they get rebuilt over time with the new gnutls, the number of packages depending on the compat pkg drops tp zero over time. This avoids rawhide breakage and removes the need for an explicit gnutls mass rebuild.
Convinced. Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= None ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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. 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", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "ISC GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3)". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nmavrogi/review/1215997-compat-gnutls28/licensecheck.txt [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. 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: [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. [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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: compat-gnutls28-3.3.14-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm compat-gnutls28-3.3.14-1.fc21.src.rpm compat-gnutls28.x86_64: W: no-documentation compat-gnutls28.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gnutls -> gnus compat-gnutls28.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnutls -> gnus compat-gnutls28.src: W: strange-permission hobble-gnutls 0775L compat-gnutls28.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name} compat-gnutls28.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{version} compat-gnutls28.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{name} compat-gnutls28.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{version} compat-gnutls28.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib compat-gnutls28.src:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 63, tab: line 67) compat-gnutls28.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnutls-3.3.14-hobbled.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- compat-gnutls28 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig crypto-policies libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libhogweed.so.2()(64bit) libnettle.so.4()(64bit) libp11-kit.so.0()(64bit) libtasn1 libtasn1.so.6()(64bit) libtasn1.so.6(LIBTASN1_0_3)(64bit) libtspi.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) p11-kit-trust rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- compat-gnutls28: bundled(gnulib) compat-gnutls28 compat-gnutls28(x86-64) libgnutls.so.28()(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_1_4)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_10)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_12)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_8)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_0_0)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_1_0)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_FIPS140)(64bit) libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_PRIVATE)(64bit) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1215997 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
Thanks for the quick review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: compat-gnutls28 Short Description: Compat package with gnutls library ABI version 28 Upstream URL: http://www.gnutls.org/ Owners: nmav Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package imported and built.