Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/plain/cld2.spec?h=f25&id=484125d9b39fe9f51009a22655dfd6bb9501500e SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-25-x86_64/00538918-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.1.gitb56fa78.fc25.src.rpm Description: Compact Language Detector 2 (CLD2, https://github.com/CLD2Owners/cld2) is a requirement for Poedit in order to enable language detection. A Fedora copr repo has been created here for packaging and building tests: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/c72578/cld2/ Fedora Account System Username: c72578
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/plain/cld2.spec?h=f25
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/tree/cld2.spec?h=f25
Spec URL: "http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/plain/cld2.spec?h=f25"
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/plain/cld2.spec?h=f25
Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/plain/cld2.spec?h=f25 Please help with the Spec URL. When using "fedora-review -b 1441728" I am getting: ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/c72578/cld2/cld2.git/tree/cld2.spec'
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec Moved spec file to github repo because of issues with linking to spec file on Fedora copr.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-25-x86_64/00546244-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.2.gitb56fa78.fc25.src.rpm * Wed May 03 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0.0.0-0.2.gitb56fa78 - Modifications to spec file - Remove sub-package libcld2. Names for rpms are cld2 and cld2-devel now - Updated version of CMakeLists.txt
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-25-x86_64/00546449-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.3.gitb56fa78.fc25.src.rpm * Wed May 03 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0.0.0-0.3.gitb56fa78 - Fix unused-direct-shlib-dependency reported by rpmlint (installed packages) - Update CMakeLists.txt to version 0.0.198, to avoid shared-lib-without-dependency-information of libcld2_full
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-25-x86_64/00547467-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.4.gitb56fa78.fc25.src.rpm * Fri May 05 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0.0.0-0.4.gitb56fa78 - Simplify cmake, use cmake macro
- Link to successful Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19410918
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00556214-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm * Wed May 24 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78 - Use license macro for LICENSE - Add doc README.md
Informal (UNOFFICIAL) Package Review ==================================== I dont think it is fedora requirement, but I would recommend to tag library version in git before packaging - version "0.0.0" in RPM looks weird and you can use readable git tag name instead of commit hash. As automated tests are included in source package, their run SHOULD be also included in %check section. Not sure, but I also think hidden ".build-id" directory should not be included in package. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkalina/review-cld2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(ddcutil) [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 747520 bytes in 12 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cld2-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cld2-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.x86_64.rpm cld2-devel-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.x86_64.rpm cld2-debuginfo-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.x86_64.rpm cld2-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm cld2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cld2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cld2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cld2-debuginfo-0.0.0-0.5.gitb56fa78.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory cld2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cld2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cld2.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- cld2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cld2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cld2(x86-64) libcld2.so.0()(64bit) libcld2_dynamic.so.0()(64bit) libcld2_full.so.0()(64bit) cld2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- cld2-debuginfo: cld2-debuginfo cld2-debuginfo(x86-64) cld2-devel: cld2-devel cld2-devel(x86-64) cld2: cld2 cld2(x86-64) libcld2.so.0()(64bit) libcld2_dynamic.so.0()(64bit) libcld2_full.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/CLD2Owners/cld2/archive/b56fa78a2fe44ac2851bae5bf4f4693a0644da7b.tar.gz#/cld2-b56fa78.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2bd0f8aa344698c0ce6b2c89f5540af10e69e92d4c74f9fe66ffe25281be1111 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2bd0f8aa344698c0ce6b2c89f5540af10e69e92d4c74f9fe66ffe25281be1111 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SOURCES/CMakeLists.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 559a7fa47f4762204c7fe5e070e6a425fc38b1f2b3111cd63f9b70d4137e1a49 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 559a7fa47f4762204c7fe5e070e6a425fc38b1f2b3111cd63f9b70d4137e1a49 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441728 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Dear Jan, thank you very much for your valuable feedback and the review. The spec file has been updated according to your suggestions: * Fri Jun 02 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0.0.0-0.6.gitb56fa78 - Removed BR: gcc-c++ - Added check section and tests Concerning the hidden ".build-id", I found the following: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431408 Versioning or tag library version in git before packaging seems to be a challenge. Upstream is "difficult" to reach and "not too active". Any advice how to handle the versioning alternatively? Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00560950-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.6.gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm
Thanks for update! If you are not owner of upstream repo, please ignore my note about tagging - in such case is using git hash to identity version OK. Just note that we have following guidelines for snapshot versions packaging: - When upstream has never chosen a version, you MUST use "Version: 0". - All snapshots MUST contain a snapshot information field in the Release: tag. That field must at minimum consist of the date in eight-digit "YYYYMMDD" format. The packager MAY include up to 17 characters of additional information after the date. The following formats are suggested: YYYYMMDD.<revision> YYYYMMDD<scm><revision> see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning
Thank you very much for your information on versioning of the package. The spec file has been updated according to your suggestions: Update cld2.spec file 0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78 * Sun Jun 04 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl <c72578> - 0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78 - Change version of package from 0.0.0 to 0 - Added date of git commit to <snapinfo> Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00561204-cld2/cld2-0-0.7.20150821gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm
Thanks! I dont see any other problem. Lets see what official sponsor will find... ;)
Dear Jan, thank you very much for your review. In the meantime I have been sponsored into the packager group. Best regards Wolfgang
Packaging looks nice and clean to me. Approving based on Jan Kalina's unofficial review above. I'd maybe change two minor things, one is that %if 0%{?usesnapshot} %autosetup -n %name-%{commit0} %else %setup -q %endif ... seems a bit unsymmetrical; would be easier to read if both were %autosetup (or both were %setup -q) but not a mix like this. The other minor thing is that -devel package doesn't need to contain '%license LICENSE' since it's already included in the base package. Feel free to change these if you want after importing. APPROVED
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cld2
Dear Kalev, Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and approving the package. The spec file has been updated according to your suggestions before the package import: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/9b1104c45f774ef6ad466cf5f2ddd281148fbb2d/SPECS/cld2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00589052-cld2/cld2-0-0.8.20150821gitb56fa78.fc27.src.rpm
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-eda10926f3
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.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-e803b2d329
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-eda10926f3
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.