Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: A fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data.
New upstream version: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Hi Tom, I'll review your package. Here are my notes, with full review at end. * HTML documentation needs to go in a -doc subpackage as it is ~50M, which is larger than the 1M limit. * Do not use noarch, even though this is a headers-only package. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries * Please provide koji builds. * Please only place 1 Require or BuildRequire item per entry (request, not requirement) Regards, Jeff Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 50944000 bytes in 2496 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated". 254 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review- libosmium/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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. Headers-only library. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. Headers-only, but needs to not be noarch. [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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.10 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.10 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.10 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-libosmium/results/libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/yum-deprecated --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-i386/root/ --releasever 22 install /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-libosmium/results/libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm libosmium-2.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel bzip2-devel expat-devel gdal-devel geos-devel osmpbf-devel proj-devel protobuf-compiler protobuf-devel protobuf-lite-devel sparsehash-devel zlib-devel Provides -------- libosmium-devel: libosmium-devel libosmium-static Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I'll do a koji build once osmpbf is in rawhide, and I'll look at the doc thing. It's only the devel package that is noarch (as described in the comment at the top) so the tests should run everywhere - that scheme was actually copied from another header only library - uthash I think. Happy to change it though.
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #3) > I'll do a koji build once osmpbf is in rawhide, and I'll look at the doc > thing. Sounds good. > It's only the devel package that is noarch (as described in the comment at > the top) so the tests should run everywhere - that scheme was actually > copied from another header only library - uthash I think. Happy to change it > though. Yes, please change it. I think that is why Mock had problems installing the package during the review - at least I hope. Plus the guidelines explicitly mention not to package header-only packages as noarch. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with header-only packages to comment on the potential pitfalls of using noarch, so I have to defer to the wisdom of others. :) Regards, Jeff
New version: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-2.fc22.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10370460
You should use %cmake.
New version using %cmake: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-3.fc22.src.rpm New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10376148
Just noticed a bundled header file (from boost, to support old versions, so not needed on Fedora) so here's a new version with it removed. Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-4.fc22.src.rpm New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10381529
Hi Tom, Thanks for the update. Package looks fine except the doc subpackage needs a copy of the license. Please add that and I'll approve. Thanks! 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. [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". 254 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review- libosmium/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. doc package needs license [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. Header-only package, thus -debuginfo is empty. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmium-devel , libosmium-doc [!]: Package functions as described. Checks pass, but otherwise didn't verify. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-4.fc22.i686.rpm libosmium-doc-2.2.0-4.fc22.noarch.rpm libosmium-2.2.0-4.fc22.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libosmium-debuginfo-2.2.0-4.fc22.i686.rpm libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel bzip2-devel expat-devel gdal-devel geos-devel osmpbf-devel proj-devel protobuf-compiler protobuf-devel protobuf-lite-devel sparsehash-devel zlib-devel libosmium-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libosmium-devel: libosmium-devel libosmium-devel(x86-32) libosmium-static libosmium-doc: libosmium-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium -L /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/ Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
License added: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-5.fc22.src.rpm
Hi Tom, Thanks! Package looks good. APPROVED. Regards, Jeff 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. [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". 254 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review- libosmium/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: 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. Header-only package, thus -debuginfo is empty. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libosmium-devel , libosmium-doc [?]: Package functions as described. Checks pass, but otherwise didn't verify. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-5.fc22.i686.rpm libosmium-doc-2.2.0-5.fc22.noarch.rpm libosmium-2.2.0-5.fc22.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libosmium-debuginfo-2.2.0-5.fc22.i686.rpm libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel bzip2-devel expat-devel gdal-devel geos-devel osmpbf-devel proj-devel protobuf-compiler protobuf-devel protobuf-lite-devel sparsehash-devel zlib-devel libosmium-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libosmium-devel: libosmium-devel libosmium-devel(x86-32) libosmium-static libosmium-doc: libosmium-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium -L osmpbf_repo/ Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libosmium Short Description: Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data Upstream URL: http://osmcode.org/libosmium/ Owners: tomh Branches: f21 f22 f23
WARNING: Requested package name libosmium doesn't match bug summary libosimum Which is the correct name here?
Git done (by process-git-requests).
osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22, libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11804/libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22
libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc21,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc21,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21
Review contains multiple notes about empty -debuginfo package, but it remains unaddressed -- empty one is not okay. If there's nothing to extract debug info from, -debuginfo needs to be explicitly disabled.
Apologies for that. It definitely was gone but I think it came back when we switched the devel package back from noarch to arched. I'm building new versions now.
libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22, osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.