Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: tomh Description: Minimalistic protocol buffer decoder and encoder in C++. Designed for high performance. Suitable for writing zero copy parsers and encoders with minimal need for run-time allocation of memory. Low-level: this is designed to be a building block for writing a very customized decoder for a stable protobuf schema. If your protobuf schema is changing frequently or lazy decoding is not critical for your application then this approach offers no value: just use the decoding API available via the C++ API that can be generated via the Google Protobufs protoc program.
1. SERIOUS: ExcludeArch. It doesn't support big endian! Don't forget MIPS, since MIPS is going to be added as a secondary arch. https://github.com/mapbox/protozero/blob/master/include/protozero/byteswap.hpp 2. make test in %check? Be aware of CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS. 3. Put %description of main under -devel's %description again please? Since only -devel is produced after rpmbuild, the description is "This package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}." however doesn't sound useful/helpful! 4. %define debug_package %{nil} Use %global.
There's no endianess issue as that file is only use on big endian machines. On little endian machines the layer above (see pbf_reader.hpp for example) just does a memcpy instead. I've tested it with a scratch build on PPC here: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738907 New version that addresses the other issues: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm
Anything more I can do here to help move this along? Happy to do one or two of yours in return, but your web server doesn't seem to be working so I can't download any of them...
There are two license files in archive. One is Apache License 2.0, other is BSD. test/include/catch.hpp is under Boost License 1.0 so licensing information needs to be checked - from quick look no other ones are used. g++ -c -I. -Iinclude -Itest/include -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Wsign-compare -Wsign-conversion -Wunused-parameter -Wno-float-equal -O0 -g -fno-inline-functions test/t/repeated_packed_fixed32/writer_test_cases.cpp -o test/t/repeated_packed_fixed32/writer_test_cases.o In file included from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/aarch64-redhat-linux/bits/os_defines.h:39:0, from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/aarch64-redhat-linux/bits/c++config.h:482, from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/iosfwd:38, from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/ios:38, from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/istream:38, from /usr/include/c++/5.2.1/sstream:38, from test/include/catch.hpp:72, from test/include/test.hpp:2, from test/t/repeated_packed_fixed32/writer_test_cases.cpp:2: /usr/include/features.h:328:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) [-Wcpp] # warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) ^ This warning is due to -O0 from DEBUG_FLAGS in Makefile. Simply adding empty one in %check gets rid of it: %check %make_build test CFLAGS="%{optflags}" CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" DEBUG_FLAGS=
Urgh. That header of course has come from https://github.com/philsquared/Catch so I probably need to open a review for that to unbundle it which will also resolve any licensing concerns. I was aware of the other warning, but wasn't too worried as it's only test code that we aren't shipping, but if it's that easy to fix then of course I will.
New version that unbundles catch.hpp (needs new dependency first) and clears DEBUG_FLAGS to avoid compiler warnings: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.1.0-3.fc22.src.rpm
Update to new upstream version: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Update to new upstream version. The dependencies are all in rawhide now, so if you could take another look at this that would be much appreciated: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.2.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
The package looks very good and complies with the guidelines (especially https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries). It looks like dependency graphs do not appear in the Doxygen generated documentation; the build logs mention the dot command is missing to generate them. As a result, you should add graphviz to the BuildRequires.
Something else seems to be dragging in graphviz for me, but an explicit require is definitely a good idea, so I've added it: Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/protozero-1.2.2-2.fc23.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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]: %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. [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 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2017280 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: protozero-devel-1.2.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm protozero-1.2.2-2.fc23.src.rpm protozero-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic protozero-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers protozero-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US protobuf -> prototype protozero-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US protoc -> proton, protocol, proctor protozero.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic protozero.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic protozero.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers protozero.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US protobuf -> prototype protozero.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US protoc -> proton, protocol, proctor 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- protozero-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- protozero-devel: protozero-devel protozero-devel(x86-64) protozero-static Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mapbox/protozero/archive/v1.2.2.tar.gz#/protozero-1.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a977473d95cefae529f3d64cca637a41b590b6267eac4757701e8a532baaad1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a977473d95cefae529f3d64cca637a41b590b6267eac4757701e8a532baaad1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1260375 -x CheckLicenseField Buildroot used: fedora-23-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
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/protozero
protozero-1.2.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-582a04ec39
protozero-1.2.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 protozero' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-49d0bbd331
protozero-1.2.2-2.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 protozero' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-582a04ec39
protozero-1.2.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
protozero-1.2.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.