Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Utility to creates PDF reports from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose sampling rate, custom graphs, custom labels and selection of which metrics should appear in the report.
- BuildRoot and defattr can be removed [1] (unless you're packaging for EPEL5 too). - This is a preference thing, but the guidelines say that macros should be used *for directories* [2]. There's no specification to use e.g. %{__install} instead of install. I personally think that this makes reading the spec file much harder for not gain. - Note for the future: bash completion file should go in %{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/, not in /etc/bash_completions.d. The latter is a legacy location. Requires -------- pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/python3 config(pcp2pdf) The dependency on python looks wrong. Maybe there's a file header with #!/usr/bin/python somewhere? pcp2pdf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Utility to creates PDF reports from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose Also "s" in "creates" is unnecessary. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
Hi Zbigniew, (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > - BuildRoot and defattr can be removed [1] (unless you're packaging for > EPEL5 too). Done as EPEL5 is out of scope. > - This is a preference thing, but the guidelines say that macros should be > used *for directories* [2]. There's no specification to use e.g. > %{__install} instead of install. I personally think that this makes reading > the spec file much harder for not gain. Ok, I have changed this. I am running "install" instead of /usr/bin/install and am assuming that the PATH will be set correctly in the buildroots. > - Note for the future: bash completion file should go in > %{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/, not in /etc/bash_completions.d. > The latter is a legacy location. Thanks, I have added a comment in the spec file for future reference > Requires > -------- > pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python > /usr/bin/python3 > config(pcp2pdf) > > The dependency on python looks wrong. Maybe there's a file header with > #!/usr/bin/python somewhere? Indeed there was a spurious line, which I removed. > pcp2pdf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Utility to creates PDF > reports from Performance Co-Pilot archives. It allows to choose > > Also "s" in "creates" is unnecessary. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros Fixed. Spec URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf.spec SRPM URL: http://acksyn.org/files/rpms/pcp2pdf/pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22.src.rpm Thanks again, Michele
===== MUST items ===== 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. GPLv2+. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/pcp2pdf [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/pcp2pdf [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. [-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Rpmlint ------- Checking: pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc23.src.rpm pcp2pdf.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-matplotlib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. OK. Requires -------- pcp2pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(pcp2pdf) python(abi) python3-matplotlib python3-pcp python3-reportlab Provides -------- pcp2pdf: config(pcp2pdf) pcp2pdf Please add the dir to %files. No issues otherwise. Package is APPROVED.
Oh, if you feel like doing a review, I have one outstanding: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227334.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pcp2pdf Short Description: Utility to create PDF reports from PCP archives Upstream URL: https://github.com/performancecopilot/pcp2pdf Owners: mbaldessari Branches: f22 f23 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22
pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
pcp2pdf-0.3-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.