Spec URL: https://dentrassi.de/download/open62541/open62541.spec SRPM URL: https://dentrassi.de/download/open62541/open62541-0.2-1.el7.src.rpm Description: open62541 is a C-based library (linking with C++ projects is possible) with all necessary tools to implement dedicated OPC UA clients and servers, or to integrate OPC UA-based communication into existing applications. Fedora Account System Username: ctron Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21603639 As this is my first package I am looking for a sponsor.
Hello Jens, I'll review it and I'll sponsor you.
Couple of notes: * The following line must be moved to devel files section: %{_libdir}/libopen62541.so * Please add _isa macro to Requires section in -devel subppackage. E.g. change from this: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to this: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} So it will always pick up the right main package.
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent lemenkov ~/Downloads: rpmlint open62541-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm open62541-devel-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm open62541.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ Please add some docs to the main package (add the following line: %doc doc/ examples/ AUTHORS FEATURES.md README.md I guess better put doc/ and examples/ and FEATURES.md to devel-subpackage. open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ^^^ Not sure about this. I guess it's fine. open62541.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libopen62541.so ^^^ see my note above open62541-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^ see above. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. lemenkov ~/Downloads: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package has few issues preventig it from meeting the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MPLv2). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included as %license. Please add the following line to the main %files section: %license LICENSE LICENSE-CC0 The former (LICENSE-CC0) must be placed in the %files section where examples/ are. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rpm-0.2.tar.gz* d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 rpm-0.2.tar.gz d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 rpm-0.2.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: Tarball's name is misleading. Could you please use %{name}-%{release}.tar.gz instead? (NOT A BLOCKER). + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. - The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) must be stored in a -devel package. - The -devel package must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Almost done. Please address my notes and I'll approve it.
Thanks for the quick review. I think I got all of your comments covered. I tried to actually compile the HTML based documentation from the docs/ folder, however there is some bug in the "fontawesome-web" package which prevents this from working. So I decided to stick to the basic files instead. I did leave the release with "-1", I hope this is ok? The new files are (at the same download location): -bash-4.2$ sha256sum * a94f04d9af790b2c2da42787f33beb4e067670f6bc82d4dc87ed34c04b86729a open62541-0.2-1.el7.src.rpm a76f84df727732ad8e5bbfa93fa486d09467abf2517e95a654de7d2fd30aaddf open62541.spec Here is the accompanying koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21645607
(In reply to Jens Reimann from comment #4) > Thanks for the quick review. > > I think I got all of your comments covered. I tried to actually compile the > HTML based documentation from the docs/ folder, however there is some bug in > the "fontawesome-web" package which prevents this from working. So I decided > to stick to the basic files instead. Ok, got that. I guess it's not a problem. > I did leave the release with "-1", I hope this is ok? Yes, that's fine for me. I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/open62541