Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Tinyxpath is a small footprint XPath syntax decoder that use tinyxml, and written in c++. I have to package it for opencity, a city game simulator (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 ), because, like tinyxml, tinyxpath is designed to be a bundled library. I only had to unbundle tinyxml, and make a shared library from the code. The package build just fine in mock with fedora 22-x86_64 Fedora Account System Username: nobrakal
It's funny opencity unbundled the tinyxml from tinyxpath and bundle it itself. :-) Good catch. Issues found: 1) License file Currently it is used the link created automatically by automake, which points to GPL license file. But the license is zlib and source code doesn't contain text license. libpng/zlib license doesn't require separate license text file distributed with the sources/binaries, so it is not show-stopper for Fedora packaging and you can just remove the wrong link. The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text 2) AUTHORS This file can be included in the package documentation. 3) shared library versioning See the link: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1. 4) libxpath.so* files are in both packages (tinyxpath, tinyxpath-devel), the *.so file (the link) should be in -devel, the other files in the main package. Something like: %files %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0 %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0.* %files devel %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so 5) tinyxpath binary is more like test and example code, it is not needed to include it in the tinyxpath package By the way you can add %check section and use tinyxpath binary there. :-) It always returns zero exit code, but the out.htm file will contain some <em> html tags in case of errors. So the section could look like this?: %check ./tinyxpath grep -q '<em>' out.htm && false The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check). 6) fedora-review complains about requirement of -devel on the base package: [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tinyxpath-devel There is just missing the %{?_isa}. 7) 'Requires: tinyxml' not needed, dependencies on the libraries are generated automagically by rpmbuild scripts. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires . 8) fedora-review complains about mixing of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros 9) cosmetic (you can ignore): I would move the %post and %postun sections before the %file section. This is just cosmetic and I should probably not even mention it here. But because of atypical placing my first impression was the %post/%postun sections are not there. :-)
Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Hi, Thank you for your reply :D (and yes, tinyxml is my pet peeve) So, >1) License file > >The proper way is to ask upstream to include the license text: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Reported: https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/feature-requests/3/ 2) Done >3) shared library versioning > >See the link: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning > >The soname should be something like libxpath.so.0.1. Done, I use "1" instead of %{version} on the contrary of the doc... Because %{version} is very long (1.3.1) >4) Done >5) > >The problem is there is one error. It is probably not important error, but it >could be reported upstream (and ignored in the %check). Corrected with a patch, seems like a bug, reported https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxpath/support-requests/7/ 6) Corrected 7) Corrected 8) Corrected, I've removed the out-of-date "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" 9) Corrected, you're right ;)
Great, good work. :-) More issues (not noticed before or in the new changes): 10) linking - I would rather not include the main.o file in the library (I guess the 'main' symbol will be problematic) - also there is missing -ltinyxml: it will add the automatic dependency on the tinyxml library and fix undefined-non-weak-symbol errors from rpmlint Something like?: g++ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -shared -o lib%{name}.so.0.1 \ -Wl,-soname,lib%{name}.so.0.1 `ls *.o | grep -v main.o` -ltinyxml 11) why is ./tinyxpath called twice in the %check? It works OK though. 12) installing AUTHORS manually is not needed, %doc macro in %file will pick it automatically (or in case of manual installation it would be better _pkgdocdir macro) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation 13) devel subpackage could have also runtime require on tinyxml-devel package ...because tinyxpath headers includes headers from tinyxml.
Hi, Spec URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath.spec SRPM URL: https://nobrakal.fedorapeople.org/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22.src.rpm 10) Right, btw the main.cpp seem only contain the test code for the executable. 11) Corrected 12) Corrected 13) tinyxml-devel is now a Requires of tinyxpath-devel (One library to rule them all, One library to find them, One library to bring them all and in the darkness bind them) Thank you again for your great review :D
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 1 files have unknown license. [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. [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). OK: both warnings are fine (devel subpackage must be arched, no API docs) [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm tinyxpath-devel-1.3.1-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc24.src.rpm tinyxpath-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tinyxpath-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tinyxpath-debuginfo-1.3.1-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tinyxpath-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tinyxpath-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- tinyxpath-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtinyxpath.so.0.1()(64bit) tinyxml-devel tinyxpath(x86-64) tinyxpath (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tinyxpath-devel: tinyxpath-devel tinyxpath-devel(x86-64) tinyxpath: libtinyxpath.so.0.1()(64bit) tinyxpath tinyxpath(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tinyxpath/tinyxpath_1_3_1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1ea02fffed6f2353870c96b41f62c382ebc0812997322ab8683d016e4ea126b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1ea02fffed6f2353870c96b41f62c382ebc0812997322ab8683d016e4ea126b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n tinyxpath 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ======= All good. Package APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tinyxpath Short Description: Small XPath syntax decoder Upstream URL: http://tinyxpath.sourceforge.net/ Owners: nobrakal Branches: f21 f22 f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
tinyxpath-1.3.1-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.