Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/valabind.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/valabind-0.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: rebus Description: Valabind is a tool to parse vala[1] or vapi files to transform them into swig[2] interface files, C++, NodeJS-ffi or GIR. With swig, you can create language bindings for any API written in vala or C with a vapi interface. It can also generate bindings for C++. Hello, this is package review request as following the unetiring policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package With the current release of valabind 0.9.2 it seems to build nicely with recent vala a in rawhide and recent versions of Fedora, so I would like to unretire the package and become owner of this orphaned package. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11410814 Best regards Michal Ambroz
Comments from the devel list: From: gil <puntogil> Hi 1) maybe you should open a bug for review the package ... ? 2) you must use %license macro for LICENSE text file 3) maybe you could remove %{!?_pkgdocdir: %global %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}} i do not understand why _pkgdocdir is versioned 4) you could remove also "Group: Applications/Engineering" is no more required regards gil
Hi gil, >1) maybe you should open a bug for review the package ... ? Yes I did already ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270630 You know - chicken egg problem - the procedure says first announce on devel list, then create the review request. >2) you must use %license macro for LICENSE text file will do - thanks > i do not understand why _pkgdocdir is versioned Plan is to get radare2 to fedora. I believe the original packager of valabind thought of keeping possibility to simultaneously install multiple versions of radare. The upstream is definitely preparing and using this possibility. So far I decided to keep the functionality for compatibility with the previous package. >4) you could remove also "Group: Applications/Engineering" is no more required Yes I know it is optional now, but I would like to keep it for compatibility with EPEL, where the valabind package was not orphaned. See https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/valabind/ Best regards Michal Ambroz
if you want i can take this review regards
Thank you Gil, that would be nice. Updated SPEC and SRPM: Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/valabind.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/valabind-0.9.2-2.fc21.src.rpm $ rpmlint valabind.spec valabind-0.9.2-2.fc21.src.rpm valabind-0.9.2-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm valabind-debuginfo-0.9.2-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm valabind.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vapi -> vapid valabind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vapi -> vapid valabind.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vapi -> vapid valabind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vapi -> vapid 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Best regards Michal Ambroz
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/valabind See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names IGNORE ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1270630-valabind/licensecheck.txt Unknown or generated -------------------- valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/foo.vapi valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/AsmExample.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/RAsm.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/RAsmCode.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/python/example.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.cs valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.pl valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.rb valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/test.cxx valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/test.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/vstest.vala Copyleft 2009-2012 -- pancake // nopcode.org valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/cxxwriter.vala valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/girwriter.vala valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/valabindwriter.vala Copyleft 2014 -- williballenthin valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/gowriter.vala Copyleft 2012-2014 -- pancake, eddyb, ritesh valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/nodeffiwriter.vala Copyleft 2009-2015 -- pancake, ritesh valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/utils.vala Copyleft 2015 -- pancake valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/windows.c [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: 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 [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 5 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 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 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]: Package functions as described. [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. [?]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [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: valabind-0.9.2-2.fc24.i686.rpm valabind-0.9.2-2.fc24.src.rpm valabind.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vapi -> vapid valabind.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vapi -> vapid valabind.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vapi -> vapid valabind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val, vale valabind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vapi -> vapid 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: valabind-debuginfo-0.9.2-2.fc24.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- valabind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libvala-0.30.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- valabind: valabind valabind(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/radare/valabind/archive/cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/valabind-0.9.2-cd4051f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b98700c32ede43a6fdb72319402ba530b24d5e1cfa299f25c6547a5706689481 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b98700c32ede43a6fdb72319402ba530b24d5e1cfa299f25c6547a5706689481 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1270630 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
NON blocking issues: [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1270630-valabind/licensecheck.txt Unknown or generated -------------------- valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/foo.vapi valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/AsmExample.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/RAsm.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/java/RAsmCode.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/python/example.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.cs valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.java valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.pl valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/r2/test.rb valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/test.cxx valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/test.py valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/t/vala/vstest.vala Copyleft 2009-2012 -- pancake // nopcode.org valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/cxxwriter.vala valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/girwriter.vala valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/valabindwriter.vala Copyleft 2014 -- williballenthin valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/gowriter.vala Copyleft 2012-2014 -- pancake, eddyb, ritesh valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/nodeffiwriter.vala Copyleft 2009-2015 -- pancake, ritesh valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/utils.vala Copyleft 2015 -- pancake valabind-cd4051f6a7f63b297f3950c11a30f468351cbd69/windows.c Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s and to include, where in the file is missing, the header of the license https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
Hello Gil, thanks for the review. I believe that referenced Licensing guideline is meant for upstream packages without any license text attached to the distributed source code. I believe the licensing for valabind is clear. There is LICENSE (GPLv3) in the upstream package release. Files you mention are either not explicitly tagged (package license applies) or tagged with the "Copyleft", which is just another way how to reference the package's LICENSE . I have created feature request in the upstream issue list, but I believe this should not be blocking the review of the package. Upstream issue report: https://github.com/radare/valabind/issues/33 Best regards Michal Ambroz
approved
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265992 ?
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: valabind New Branches: devel f21 f22 f23 el6 epel7 Owners: rebus brouhaha InitialCC: Hello SCM team, please can you unretire this package? I would like to unretire branches devel, f21 and create branches for f22, f23. The el6, epel7 is still living I believe, I just need to be granted rights there. Best regards Michal Ambroz
This SCM request method has been deprecated. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests.
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6278
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-907a450cc0
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c119fe445c
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-978c277143
valabind-0.9.2-2.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 valabind' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-907a450cc0
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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 valabind' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-978c277143
valabind-0.9.2-2.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 valabind' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c119fe445c
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
valabind-0.9.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.