Spec URL: https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/4diac-forte.spec SRPM URL: https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/org.eclipse.4diac.forte-1.9.0.M3.tar.gz Description: The 4DIAC runtime environment (4DIAC-RTE, FORTE) is a small portable implementation of an IEC 61499 runtime environment targeting small embedded control devices (16/32 Bit), implemented in C++. It supports online-reconfiguration of its applications and the real-time capable execution of all function block types provided by the IEC 61499 standard. Fedora Account System Username: ctron Successful scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24736059
- Your dist tag in Release is malformed, it's missing ? Release: 0.1%{?dist} - Version: should not contain letters, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Upstream_uses_invalid_characters_in_the_version Instead use <extraver> as documented here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#More_complex_versioning %global extraver M3 Release: 0.1.%{extraver}%{?dist} Otherwise you would not be able to provide a correct upgrade path when 1.9.0 finally lands. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - Dist tag is present. ===== 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]: 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: "*No copyright* EPL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated", "EPL (v1.0)". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/4diac-forte/review-4diac- forte/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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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). [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: 4diac-forte-1.9.0.M3-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 4diac-forte-debuginfo-1.9.0.M3-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 4diac-forte-debugsource-1.9.0.M3-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 4diac-forte-1.9.0.M3-0.1.fc28.src.rpm 4diac-forte.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4diac-forte.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/4diac-forte 4diac-forte.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary forte 4diac-forte-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Sorry, you are right. I mixed up Release with Version when it came to <extraver>. Also to "dist" variable was wrong. I fixed both problems and also changed file under "/etc/sysconfig" to "%config(noreplace)" as this file is configuration, but should not be overwritten if the user makes changes to it. New scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24737654
Just to be sure: As the version/release changed, the new name/URL of the SRPM is now: https://dentrassi.de/download/4diac-forte/4diac-forte-1.9.0-0.1.M3.fc27.src.rpm
It's all good, package approved.
Thanks for the quick review!
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/4diac-forte
Build was successful: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24757437 Thanks