Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-stdlib2.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc26.src.rpm Description: Erlang stdlib extensions. Fedora Account System Username: peter It's a requirement for the recent erlang-riak_kv library. Here is a draft of Erlang packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines Here is a successful build for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21437936
HEllo, Thank again for your reviews. The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections I've got tests failures in Mock: module 's2_sh' s2_sh: cp_test...[0.002 s] ok s2_sh: ls_test...*failed* in function s2_sh:ls_test/0 (src/s2_sh.erl, line 62) **error:{badmatch,[]} output:<<"">> s2_sh: ls_l_test...*failed* in function s2_sh:ls_l_test/0 (src/s2_sh.erl, line 68) **error:{badmatch,[]} output:<<"">> Hence the build fails afterwards. I'm gonna take a look at your two other packages and see this one later.
Eureka! The test fails because my /tmp/ dir is totally empty but the test expects some files in return. I had to "touch" a file in %prep to make it work. Anyway, the review: - You should query upstream for a LICENSE file. - You should add comments above your patch, explaining what they do, or better, link to an upstream bug report. None of this is blocking, so the package is accepted. 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. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "ISC", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/erlang-stdlib2/review-erlang- stdlib2/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. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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]: 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: 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-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc28.x86_64.rpm erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc28.src.rpm erlang-stdlib2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid erlang-stdlib2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid erlang-stdlib2.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-stdlib2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-stdlib2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid erlang-stdlib2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlib -> std lib, std-lib, stolid erlang-stdlib2.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{upstream} erlang-stdlib2.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{realname} erlang-stdlib2.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{version} erlang-stdlib2.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{realname} erlang-stdlib2.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-stdlib2
erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc26 erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-df3fecadc4
erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc27 erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0a4e5fa602
erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc27, erlang-hyper-0-0.1.20161011git4b1abc4.fc27, erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-0a4e5fa602
erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc26, erlang-hyper-0-0.1.20161011git4b1abc4.fc26, erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.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-df3fecadc4
erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc26, erlang-hyper-0-0.1.20161011git4b1abc4.fc26, erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-chronos-0.5.1-1.fc27, erlang-hyper-0-0.1.20161011git4b1abc4.fc27, erlang-stdlib2-0-0.1.20170810git5ccd9b2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.