SPEC: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/lkundrak/hwinfo/libx86emu.git/plain/libx86emu.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lkundrak/hwinfo/fedora-rawhide-i386/00585383-libx86emu/libx86emu-1.11-1.fc27.src.rpm mock build: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lkundrak/hwinfo/fedora-rawhide-i386/00585383-libx86emu/ Description: Small x86 emulation library with focus of easy usage and extended execution logging functions. The library features an API to create emulation objects for x86 architecture. FAS username: lkundrak
Hello, - The Group: tag is not needeed in Fedora, please remove it (twice). See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - You -devel subpackage must depend on the main package: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Change make %{?_smp_mflags} into %make_build - Please change Source0: to: Source0: https://github.com/wfeldt/libx86emu/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - You forgot to run ldconfig for you *.so files. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Lubomir: Hey, you beat me to it! :) You might want to incorporate some of what I did for libx86emu[1] and hwinfo[2] into your specs, and I ask you consider building for EPEL7 along with Fedora branches (so that my python-kiwi package can build EL7 images with kiwi initrd for oemboot stuff). I'd also be happy to be co-maintainer if it's okay with you. :) [1]: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/KIWI/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00593473-libx86emu/libx86emu.spec [2]: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/KIWI/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00593474-hwinfo/hwinfo.spec
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) Thank you for a superb review. I believe I've addressed all the points in the new version: SPEC: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/lkundrak/hwinfo/libx86emu.git/plain/libx86emu.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lkundrak/hwinfo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00593929-libx86emu/libx86emu-1.11-2.fc28.src.rpm changes: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/lkundrak/hwinfo/libx86emu.git/commit/?id=5ad2032e2a9987d3620826373b9716f30ec09f41 (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > You might want to incorporate some of what I did for libx86emu[1] and > hwinfo[2] into your specs, and I ask you consider building for EPEL7 along > with Fedora branches (so that my python-kiwi package can build EL7 images > with kiwi initrd for oemboot stuff). > > I'd also be happy to be co-maintainer if it's okay with you. :) I didn't look in detail of what's different in your SPEC file. I'd be more than happy if you co-maintained (or even better -- were the primary maintainer) of the package once it's in. Feel free to apply your changes then and make branches for whichever repo you wish. I'm filing a hwinfo review soon, and everything I wrote above applies there too.
Everything is good, package accepted. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "NTP (legal disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL". 105 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libx86emu/review- libx86emu/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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 20480 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libx86emu-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: libx86emu-1.11-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm libx86emu-devel-1.11-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm libx86emu-debuginfo-1.11-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm libx86emu-1.11-2.fc28.src.rpm libx86emu.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C x86 emulation library libx86emu.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libx86emu.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libx86emu-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libx86emu-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libx86emu.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C x86 emulation library 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libx86emu
Thanks for the review! The package is now imported. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) Neal, I'm wondering if you could log in into Pagure? Apparently that needs to be done in order for me to be able to add you to the packages: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6310