Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19522897 Description: Watchman exists to watch files and record when they actually change. It can also trigger actions (such as rebuilding assets) when matching files change. Fedora Account System Username: asymptotically I noticed that the same software had a review request in 2013 under Bug 969350 but this was closed due to a failing build. This is my first package so I believe I need a sponsor, thanks.
After running fedora-review it seems like there are a few problems with my package. I have moved the storage directory to /var/lib/watchman which after reading man hier seems a bit more appropriate. Currently instead of a man page, make install copies a markdown file into /usr/share/doc/. Should I rewrite this as a man page and try to get it merged upstream? Here are my changes so far: Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-2.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-2.fc25.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19546652 Thanks again
Sorry for making so many changes but I found that the build was broken on Fedora 26 because of the upgrade to GCC 7. The source needed a small patch to work again, I wasn't sure where I should upload it during the package review so I have just uploaded it with the spec and SRPM. Hopefully that's okay. Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-2.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-3.fc26.src.rpm Patch0 URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-fallthrough.patch Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19598470
Hi Matthew, I am a sponsor and will take this review. Could you please carry out 2-3 informal (unofficial) reviews on packages in the package review queue to demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group This is important as once sponsored as a Fedora Package Maintainer you will be able to review and approve any other maintainer's potential packages. I'll add my review shortly.
Initial review at this time: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: watchman-2.spec should be watchman.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - Third party libraries are statically embedded in the binary https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables - The static library license is not declared in the SPEC license field - Directory /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 is not owned - Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the start of the path to where documentation is installed, don't do both in %files - The v in %changelog should not be there, only the number eg 4.7.0-3 not v4.7.0-3 - %install must not have the rm -rf line - The spec in your review must match the spec in the srpm for the review ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1450590-watchman-2/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 2 files. [!]: 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 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 [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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 watchman-debuginfo [x]: 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. [-]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: watchman-4.7.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm watchman-4.7.0-3.fc27.src.rpm watchman.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog v4.7.0-3 ['4.7.0-3.fc27', '4.7.0-3'] watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-3.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 watchman.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog v4.7.0-3 ['4.7.0-3.fc27', '4.7.0-3'] watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1450590-watchman-2/srpm/watchman-2.spec 2017-05-23 10:34:11.533362298 +0100 +++ /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1450590-watchman-2/srpm-unpacked/watchman.spec 2017-05-17 18:50:45.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: watchman Version: 4.7.0 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: A file watching service @@ -8,4 +8,7 @@ Source0: https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/watchman-%{version}.tar.gz +# https://github.com/facebook/watchman/issues/467 +Patch0: watchman-4.7.0-fallthrough.patch + BuildRequires: autoconf automake pcre-devel Requires: pcre @@ -42,4 +45,6 @@ %changelog +* Wed May 17 2017 Matthew Smith <asymptotically508> - v4.7.0-3 +- Add patch to fix builds with GCC 7 * Sun May 14 2017 Matthew Smith <asymptotically508> - v4.7.0-2 - Disable Python bindings Requires -------- watchman-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): watchman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pcre rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- watchman-debuginfo: watchman-debuginfo watchman-debuginfo(x86-64) watchman: watchman watchman(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v4.7.0.tar.gz#/watchman-4.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1450590 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 _____________________________________________________________________ There's no need to list Patch in your comment, just the spec and srpm. The static library issue is the major issue that needs to be worked out, the rest is just minor spec tweaks, you may need to open an issue upstream for assistance in avoiding the static library problem and open review requests for any library that is unbundled that isn't already in Fedora. Until that is sorted out, this is NOT APPROVED
Thanks for the reply :) Looks like there are 4 libraries statically linked with watchman. There's jansson which is already in the Fedora repositories. However libart, wildmatch and tap are not already in the Fedora repositories, would I need to make separate packages for these and then edit the watchman build scripts to use system version libraries instead of the bundled libraries?
Yes indeed Either of those can be the package that you use to become a package maintainer.. you'll still need to carry out a few unofficial reviews to demonstrate understanding of the packaging guidelines before I can approve you to join the maintainers of course. If you can cc me when you open the package reviews for the other libraries I'll handle those as well. Block each of them on FE-NEEDSPONSOR until one of them has completed review and you've joined the package maintainer group. I suggest initially opening an issue with them to see if they are willing to modify their build scripts to use dynamically linked system libraries upstream to minimise the pain of a maintainer patch carrying out the unbundling yourself.
I opened an issue upstream and it seems like they have forked/heavily modified the libraries from upstream so I don't think that it'd be right to package these libraries under the same name (they are not compatible APIs). After reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables I'm still not sure what I should do. Any ideas? Thanks
Thanks for opening the issue with them, I have commented on it supporting you. In the meanwhile if you could progress with the informal/unofficial package reviews and provide them to me we can take care of the requirements for sponsorship into the packagers group. Where we go from here for this application will depend on how the conversation goes upstream :)
Hi folks -- I'm a Fedora package maintainer (albeit for a small package), and also one of the original authors of Watchman. I'm very interested in getting Watchman into Fedora -- we believe it's the most robust directory watching tool in existence. I understand and respect the motivations behind wanting to unbundle libraries, but as Wez pointed out in https://github.com/facebook/watchman/issues/474#issuecomment-303563584 that wouldn't be appropriate here. We've forked these libraries and made invasive changes to them -- they're effectively internal components at this point. It is not really possible to extricate our changes, unfortunately. Consider a slightly different situation where we wrote a JSON library, wildmatch, libart etc from scratch for Watchman. I'm sure unbundling wouldn't be a problem in that case. Would it be possible to treat our current situation as this slightly different but still legitimate one?
Apologies for the delays but I had some family issues that delayed responses. Based on the discussions upstream, and the change in bundling policies in recent times, I don't think this should be an actual blocker. That being said the specific language in the guidelines appears ambiguous as there is a clear NO STATIC WITHOUT EXCEPTION followed by "well, bundle if you really have to". They way we handle such a situation in Fedora to get clarification is via our Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC). The ticket has been opened for the clarification request here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/692
Both URLs to SPEC files are returning 404 now.
So the FPC agree the wording needs to be cleaned up, but the way the libraries are handled in watchman complies with policy :) So the only things that need to be cleared up IIRC are: - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: watchman-2.spec should be watchman.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - Directory /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 is not owned - Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the start of the path to where documentation is installed, don't do both in %files - The v in %changelog should not be there, only the number eg 4.7.0-3 not v4.7.0-3 - %install must not have the rm -rf line - The spec in your review must match the spec in the srpm for the review If you can please update with that sorted out I'll be able to approve the package, and then do a quick review of your informal reviews and if all good get you in the packagers group :)
>- Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the >start So should the %files look something like this? >%files >%{_bindir}/watchman >%{_sharedstatedir}/watchman >%license LICENSE >%doc %{_datarootdir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/README.markdown Thanks
To ensure the doc location complies with guidelines what I think would be better would be to include at the end of your %install: rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}* and then in your %files just have: %doc README.markdown __________________ Separate to that can you please ass --disable-silent-rules to your ./configure and on my testing there was no need to include --disable-python as there is no python in the buildroot to be picked up anyway. Finally from a syntax/grammar perspective to make life easier on other maintainers, can you please do one line per BuildRequires ?
Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/fedora/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3524/20163524/watchman-4.7.0-4.fc27.src.rpm Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20163523 >on my testing there was no need to include --disable-python as there is no python in the buildroot to be picked up anyway. Without --without-python it it still tries to include Python.h, which makes the build fail.
Matt I just got time to pick this up and the URLs are dead. If you can pop them back up I'll do a final review and we can get this in place.
Whoops, sorry about that. They're back up now. Spec URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman.spec SRPM URL: https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman-4.7.0-4.fc26.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1450590-watchman/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: 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 [!]: 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 watchman-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: %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 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: watchman-4.7.0-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm watchman-4.7.0-4.fc28.src.rpm watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-4.fc28.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 watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Debug -> Bug watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) information -> incantation watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) for -> fora, foo watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) package watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US This -> Thuds watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US package watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US provides -> profiles watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US information -> incantation watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US for -> fora, foo watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Debug -> Bug watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US is -> ii, iv, Cs watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US useful -> segfault watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US when -> wheel watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developing watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US applications -> incantations watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US that -> hat, path watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US use -> user watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US this -> thuds watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US or -> op, xor watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debugging -> chugging watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) file -> life, fine, filter watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) watching -> patching, scratching watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) service -> server watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exists -> chemists watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US to -> toy watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US watch -> patch, batch watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US files -> profiles watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US and -> handle watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US record -> core watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US when -> wheel watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US they -> theory watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actually -> acolyte watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US change -> channel watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US It -> Bit, Kit, Ii watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US also -> alt watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trigger -> trivial watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actions -> incantations watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US such -> munch watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US as -> gas, Cs, Ks watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebuilding -> foregrounding watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US assets -> gasses watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matching -> patching, scratching watchman.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 47 warnings. Requires -------- watchman-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): watchman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pcre rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- watchman-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) watchman-debuginfo watchman-debuginfo(x86-64) watchman: watchman watchman(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v4.7.0.tar.gz#/watchman-4.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1450590 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 ====== SUMMARY ====== We're almost there. Apologies for the delay on trying to get to this. There was a 4.9.0 release 16th August that should be updated to and tested. the %install has a rm -rf of %{buildroot} which shouldn't be there. There's an extraneous empty hidden files that should be cleaned up in the %install: /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty ... filesystem is not git and rpm is aware of what should or should not be there ;) Fix up those last few bits and this will be approved.
Oh ignore that bit about the rm ... I just re-read what it was about ... Just get it to 4.9.0 and remove that hidden file and it's an approval
This review seems stalled, and now that Git version 2.16 has a support for watchman (to speed up operations on big working directories), the inclusion of watchman in Fedora is even more interesting. I cannot download https://mattysmith.co.uk/watchman/watchman.spec James Hogarth, do you have the last version of the spec file?
Should this be closed as a duplicate of Bug 1564720?
Closing after two years without any response from the original submitter.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days