Spec URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libblocksruntime.spec SRPM URL: https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: LLVM's compiler-rt project contains a subproject called "Blocksruntime", which is a proposed extension to the C-family of languages to use Grand Central Dispatch (GCD). This package provides only the Blocksruntime part of compiler-rt for using Blocks (and is necessary as a dependency for building the Swift programming language). Fedora Account System Username: tachoknight
- Group: is not needed in Fedora. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files is not needed as it is the default. - Package fails to install: DEBUG util.py:479: Error: DEBUG util.py:479: Problem 1: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:479: - nothing provides libBlocksRuntime.so.0()(64bit) needed by libblocksruntime-devel-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:479: Problem 2: package libblocksruntime-static-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libblocksruntime-devel = 5.0.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:479: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:479: - nothing provides libBlocksRuntime.so.0()(64bit) needed by libblocksruntime-devel-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:617: Child return code was: 1 It seems libblocksruntime doesn't have the correct Provides but I don't know why. Oh now I get it, you installed the lib with non-executable bits. Lib should be executable, fix this with: install -m 755 %{builddir}/lib/libBlocksRuntime.so.0.%{shlibver} %{buildroot}/%{_libdir} - No need for %{builddir} here, just use: %license LICENSE.TXT 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 2497 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libblocksruntime/review- libblocksruntime/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libblocksruntime-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 libblocksruntime-devel , libblocksruntime-static [?]: 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 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: libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libblocksruntime-devel-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libblocksruntime-static-5.0.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm libblocksruntime.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so.0.1 exit.5 libblocksruntime.x86_64: W: no-documentation libblocksruntime-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libblocksruntime-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libblocksruntime-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
I made the changes and thanks to the friendly folks in the IRC #fedora-devel channel was able to get rid of my global define and use the %setup macro instead.
Package approved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblocksruntime. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3047fdc1ea
libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.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-2018-3047fdc1ea
libblocksruntime-5.0.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.