Spec URL: https://github.com/knnniggett/specfiles/blob/master/perl-X10.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-25-x86_64/00494708-perl-X10/perl-X10-0.03-3.fc25.src.rpm Description: X10 perl module for the Firecracker, ActiveHome, and TwoWay/TW523 interfaces. Fedora Account System Username: kni Package currently builds in my copr repo on el6, el7, f24, f25, & rawhide. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kni/zoneminder_deps/ This is my first package! Chuck Anderson has offered to sponsor me. This package depends on perl-Astro-SunTime, which has also been submitted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866
> %check > %make_build test > > %install %check section is executed _after_ %install (as it may be used to test files installed into %buildroot), so placing it below %install in the spec file is the logical choice. > %{perl_vendorlib}/X10.pm > %{perl_vendorlib}/X10/* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
hi, Thank you for the feedback and the followup references. Changes have been made. specfile: https://github.com/knnniggett/specfiles/blob/master/perl-X10.spec srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-25-x86_64/00495156-perl-X10/perl-X10-0.03-4.fc25.src.rpm I will make the same change to perl-Astro-Suntime
Using feedback from 1409866 as a guide, I have made changes to the perl-X10 specfile, including but not limited to, bumping to a new release the author just pushed to cpan. new specfile: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-X10.spec new srpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00502130-perl-X10/perl-X10-0.04-1.fc26.src.rpm License is GPL3 and the new version embeds this into the README and perl files. rpmlint reports no errors or warnings: $ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-X10-0.04-1.fc25.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/abauer/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/perl-X10-0.04-1.fc25.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. NOTE: I had to force 755 attributes on the two perl executables, x10client and x10server. If I didn't, rpmlint would complain with non-standard-executable-perm 555. If one unpacks the source tarball, the executables do in fact have 755 perms. Thank you for your time.
Found a better way to fix the non-standard-executable-perm issue by using %{_fix_perms} macro. Latest specfile: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/specfiles/master/perl-X10.spec Latest SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kni/zoneminder_deps/fedora-26-x86_64/00506609-perl-X10/perl-X10-0.04-2.fc26.src.rpm There are no more issues that I am aware of. This package is ready for review.
There are two files packaged as %doc that appear to be needed by /usr/bin/x10server: macros.config scheduler.config Is it expected that /usr/bin/x10server should work out-of-the-box, or should it require a user to set it up by copying those config files somewhere first?
Good question. I treated those config files as sample templates and should therefore live under the doc folder. I made that conclusion based on their content. Each config file is site specific. A new config file must be written for each application. The two client/server binaries in this module are not used by ZoneMinder, which of course is the purpose behind submitting this module for approval. The pod text you see for x10server & x10client was actually written by me and then submitted to the author. Since I've never actually used this module, I was not able to give more detail than what you see. I don't have a problem doing something different, but at the moment I can't think of anything better to do. In my opinion including the binaries with little documentation is better than excluding them, but I'm willing to reconsider.
(In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #6) > Good question. > I treated those config files as sample templates and should therefore live > under the doc folder. I made that conclusion based on their content. Each > config file is site specific. A new config file must be written for each > application. I'm fine with that then. Review APPROVED: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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]: 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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== 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). [ ]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-X10-0.04-2.fc26.noarch.rpm perl-X10-0.04-2.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- perl-X10 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.1) perl(Astro::SunTime) perl(Carp) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Device::SerialPort) perl(File::Basename) perl(FileHandle) perl(IO::Select) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POSIX) perl(Storable) perl(Time::ParseDate) perl(X10) perl(X10::Controller) perl(X10::Device) perl(X10::Event) perl(X10::EventList) perl(X10::Macro) perl(X10::MacroProc) perl(X10::Network) perl(X10::SchedEvent) perl(X10::Scheduler) perl(X10::Server) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) Provides -------- perl-X10: perl(X10) perl(X10::ActiveHome) perl(X10::Controller) perl(X10::Device) perl(X10::Event) perl(X10::EventList) perl(X10::FireCracker) perl(X10::Macro) perl(X10::MacroProc) perl(X10::Network) perl(X10::SchedEvent) perl(X10::Scheduler) perl(X10::Server) perl(X10::TwoWay) perl-X10 Source checksums ---------------- http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RO/ROBF/X10-0.04.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3dcee9d95614b2db70de608e933d42817f93fccd5b1f2f782b0846af487d9134 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3dcee9d95614b2db70de608e933d42817f93fccd5b1f2f782b0846af487d9134 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1409869 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-X10
perl-X10-0.04-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-562ea1cb4d
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ad2ac172cd
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-01dc0f6e3a
perl-X10-0.04-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-650714234c
perl-X10-0.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-650714234c
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-01dc0f6e3a
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ad2ac172cd
perl-X10-0.04-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-562ea1cb4d
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-X10-0.04-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-X10-0.04-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
perl-X10-0.04-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.