Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: This library is designed to simplify the implementation of the server side of OAuth2. Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12323786 There are two warnings from rpmlint: Checking: erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm erlang-oauth2.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-oauth2.src:43: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{srcname}-%{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. This package does not build an .so file (it is only .beam and .app files). However, it is Fedora Erlang convention to package all Erlang libraries in %{_libdir} as documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines Because this is a convention, I think we should ignore these warnings.
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12412731
I have uploaded a newer spec file that enables the unit tests, but in order for them to work I need another package request that I've submitted to be made available in Rawhide: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295667 Once that is merged, this build should work in Koji. Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
This new spec/srpm combo has one error and one warning, but they are both for the same reason as my earlier comment: Erlang libraries should not be noarch, and they do go into %{_libdir} and do not always have binaries. Therefore, I think we can ignore these messages from rpmlint.
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12441378
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12442085
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-2.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12482129
I have one more change on the spec file, to disable the tests on i686 due to a known erlang-eunit bug. Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.src.rpm
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12482253
With this spec there is one error and one warning, and I think we can ignore both: Checking: erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.src.rpm erlang-oauth2.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-oauth2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. It is Fedora Erlang policy to install all Erlang libs to %{_libdir} and for them to be arch packages even when they are noarch. This package does not build a binary, thus these warnings. The Erlang SIG does hope to make it possible to install such packages as noarch in the future, but for now this is the way it's done.
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12483241
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-3.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12484437
It appears that the package no longer builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12875518
It looks like this has been fixed upstream, but they have not made a release with the fix: https://github.com/kivra/oauth2/issues/59 I have requested a release since they have not made one in quite some time: https://github.com/kivra/oauth2/issues/61 The patch does not seem too bad though, so I will attempt to apply it in the spec file: https://github.com/kivra/oauth2/pull/60/files
Whoops, didn't mean to clear the needsinfo.
jcline, I've backported the upstream patch to fix the build for Erlang 18, and made release 4 of the package here for your review: Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-4.fc24.src.rpm
rbarlow's scratch build of erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-4.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898526
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel /fedora-review/1294331-erlang-oauth2/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. [-]: 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). [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]: 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. [-]: 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 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: erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm erlang-oauth2-0.6.0-4.fc24.src.rpm erlang-oauth2.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-oauth2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-oauth2.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-oauth2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- erlang-oauth2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts Provides -------- erlang-oauth2: erlang-oauth2 erlang-oauth2(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kivra/oauth2/archive/0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 608437df914eac82dc3e71c81e8657927b13a46467810aaa0f028ff7918b5c77 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 608437df914eac82dc3e71c81e8657927b13a46467810aaa0f028ff7918b5c77 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1294331 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12918144