Bug 1231460 - Review Request: osmium-tool - Command line tool for working with OpenStreetMap data based on the Osmium library
Summary: Review Request: osmium-tool - Command line tool for working with OpenStreetMa...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mattia Verga
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1231459 1260368
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-06-13 14:02 UTC by Tom Hughes
Modified: 2015-12-11 23:53 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-12-11 23:53:27 UTC
Type: Bug
mattia.verga: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom Hughes 2015-06-13 14:02:46 UTC
Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.0.1-1.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Command line tool for working with OpenStreetMap data based on the Osmium library.

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-07-12 16:09:24 UTC
New upstream version:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.1.1-1.src.rpm

Comment 3 Tom Hughes 2015-07-22 10:23:44 UTC
New build to fix a test failure in mock:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.1.1-3.src.rpm

Scratch build:


Comment 4 Eduardo Mayorga 2015-08-16 03:44:52 UTC
The link to the latest SRPM is dead.

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-08-16 07:24:21 UTC
Sorry, typoed it. Here are the correct URLs:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.1.1-3.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2015-09-06 09:30:56 UTC
New upstream version, depends on libosmium update:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.2.1-1.src.rpm

Comment 7 Eduardo Mayorga 2015-09-06 17:44:52 UTC
Not Found

The requested URL /tmp/osmium-tool-1.2.1-1.src.rpm was not found on this server.

Comment 8 Tom Hughes 2015-09-06 18:23:58 UTC
Fixed, but we really need to get the new libosmium dependencies reviewed first so that it can be updated, as the osmium-tool tests will fail with the current versio.

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.2.1-1.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 9 Tom Hughes 2015-11-11 21:15:25 UTC
The dependencies for this are all in rawhide now, so this is ready for review...

Comment 10 Tom Hughes 2015-11-20 19:01:40 UTC
Are you still able to handle this review, or should I look for somebody else?

Comment 11 Tom Hughes 2015-11-29 10:34:12 UTC
New upstream version:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.3.0-1.src.rpm

Note that this needs libosmium 2.5.3 which is (hopefully) building in rawhide now:


Comment 12 Mattia Verga 2015-11-29 10:52:45 UTC
I was running the review, but I will redo with the updated version.

A quick note: there are problems with directory ownerships: you should change the file section entry "/usr/share/zsh/site-functions" in ""/usr/share/zsh/site-functions/_osmium".

There's also an error on "/usr/share/zsh" not being owned by anything. Should be owned by "filesystem" package?

Comment 13 Tom Hughes 2015-11-29 10:58:45 UTC
Yes sorry about that - I should have checked last night if it had been updated :-(

It looks like it's normal for packages that install in /usr/share/zsh/site-functions to own /usr/share/zsh themselves (see mercurial, systemd, pulseaudio at least).

Same goes for /usr/share/zsh/site-functions itself - in order to avoid forcing zsh to be installed it is normal for packages installing there to own it themselves. This is covered here:


Comment 14 Tom Hughes 2015-11-29 11:13:33 UTC
New version that owns /usr/share/zsh itself:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

The libosmium build (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12011021) is now complete.

Comment 15 Mattia Verga 2015-11-29 12:28:31 UTC
Good, I will do the review as soon as libosmium reach the mirrors (now the build is failing because it still uses libosmium 2.5.2)

Comment 16 Mattia Verga 2015-12-01 10:19:49 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (3 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown
     or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 141 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/zsh/site-
     functions(systemd, pulseaudio), /usr/share/zsh(systemd, pulseaudio)
[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.
[-]: 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
[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.
[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 2 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]: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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 osmium-
[x]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[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.

Installation errors
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.14
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-debuginfo-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-debuginfo-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-debuginfo-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/rpmbuild/1231460-osmium-tool/results/osmium-tool-debuginfo-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Checking: osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

osmium-tool-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

osmium-tool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/osmcode/osmium-tool/archive/v1.3.0/osmium-tool-1.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : be5a851de0e0de0bf5fedad5ad017cd058d27aea9b80a850f043583e6c20c3d3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be5a851de0e0de0bf5fedad5ad017cd058d27aea9b80a850f043583e6c20c3d3

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1231460
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

Comment 17 Mattia Verga 2015-12-01 10:21:46 UTC
Note: installation error due to fedora-review bug (it tries to double install -debuginfo package).

All other checkings are ok.
Package approved.

Comment 18 Tom Hughes 2015-12-01 10:22:28 UTC

Comment 19 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-01 13:29:40 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/osmium-tool

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2015-12-01 15:50:53 UTC
osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc23 libosmium-2.5.3-2.fc23 gdalcpp-1.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c6252e22e6

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2015-12-04 01:38:27 UTC
gdalcpp-1.1.0-1.fc23, libosmium-2.5.3-2.fc23, osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update osmium-tool libosmium gdalcpp'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c6252e22e6

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2015-12-11 23:53:24 UTC
gdalcpp-1.1.0-1.fc23, libosmium-2.5.3-2.fc23, osmium-tool-1.3.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.