Spec URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath.spec SRPM URL: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: TomsFastMath is meant to be a very fast yet still fairly portable and easy to port large integer arithmetic library written in ISO C. The goal specifically is to be able to perform very fast modular exponentiations and other related functions required for ECC, DH and RSA cryptosystems. Fedora Account System Username: tkorbar koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26395330
- The program is dual licensed: License: Public Domain or WTFPL - Not needed: Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun):/sbin/ldconfig - Don't use mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/tfm install -p -m0644 -D doc/tfm.pdf %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/tfm install -p -m0644 -D LICENSE %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/tfm Just install the files in %files: %doc doc/tfm.pdf %license LICENSE - Use the new ldconfig_scriptlets instead of %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade.2Fcompatibility_impact - Make a symlink for the unversionned library: pushd %{buildroot}%{_libdir} ln -s libtfm.so.1.0.0 libtfm.so.1 ln -s libtfm.so.1.0.0 libtfm.so popd And install it in the devel subpackage: %files devel %{_includedir}/tfm.h %{_libdir}/libtfm.so - Install the tomsfastmath.pc file in %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ and add it to the devel subpackage: sed -e 's,^Version:.*,Version: %{version},' tomsfastmath.pc.in > tomsfastmath.pc mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig install -p -m 0644 -D tomsfastmath.pc %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ And %files devel %{_includedir}/tfm.h %{_libdir}/libtfm.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/tomsfastmath.pc
Everything done except pkgconfig file. It seems upstream doesnt have it. Should i create it? SPEC: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath.spec SRPM: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Ha you're right, it was added after the last release. No don't add it although you could add what I said as a comment: # Add tomsfastmath.pc in next release # sed -e 's,^Version:.*,Version: %%{version},' tomsfastmath.pc.in > tomsfastmath.pc # mkdir -p %%{buildroot}%%{_libdir}/pkgconfig # install -p -m 0644 -D tomsfastmath.pc %%{buildroot}%%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ to remind you to add it on the next release. - Add a dot after the library here, otherwise you also include the unversionned version which is wrong: %files %doc doc/tfm.pdf %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/libtfm.so.* Package otherwise approved, please fix the above issue before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ===== 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: "do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 126 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tomsfastmath/review- tomsfastmath/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. [-]: 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 235520 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tomsfastmath-devel [?]: 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]: 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: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm tomsfastmath-devel-0.13.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm tomsfastmath-debuginfo-0.13.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm tomsfastmath-debugsource-0.13.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc29.src.rpm tomsfastmath.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exponentiations -> exponentiation, exponentiation s, exponential tomsfastmath.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptosystems -> cryptograms tomsfastmath.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libtfm.so tomsfastmath-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib tomsfastmath-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tomsfastmath-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation tomsfastmath.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exponentiations -> exponentiation, exponentiation s, exponential tomsfastmath.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptosystems -> cryptograms 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Both solved. Thanks for review. SPEC: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath.spec SRPM: https://tkorbar.fedorapeople.org/tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tomsfastmath
Changing status to NEXTRELEASE according to [1], step 12 (I am not using RAWHIDE in case it will be build for more versions): [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f244a84f25
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.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-f244a84f25
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8aee925eeb
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-8aee925eeb
tomsfastmath-0.13.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.