Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/libcerf.spec SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/libcerf-1.8-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamatos Description: libcerf is a self-contained numeric library that provides an efficient and accurate implementation of complex error functions, along with Dawson, Faddeeva, and Voigt functions.
I get the following compilation error (libcerf-1.8): switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -o gnuplot_x11 gplt_x11.o gpexecute.o version.o getcolor_x11.o -lX11 -ldl -lm -lcerf -lz -lpangocairo-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lcairo -lglib-2.0 In file included from ../../src/libcerf.c:15: ../../src/gp_types.h:143:8: error: expected '{' before 'double' struct cmplx { ^~~~~ ../../src/gp_types.h:143:8: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers ../../src/gp_types.h:143:8: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers struct cmplx { ^~~~~ ../../src/gp_types.h:151:9: error: expected '{' before 'double' struct cmplx cmplx_val; ^~~~~ ../../src/gp_types.h:151:9: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers ../../src/gp_types.h:151:9: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers struct cmplx cmplx_val; ^~~~~ make[4]: *** [Makefile:906: libcerf.o] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnuplot-5.2.5/minimal/src' make[3]: *** [Makefile:960: all-recursive] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnuplot-5.2.5/minimal/src' make[2]: *** [Makefile:634: all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnuplot-5.2.5/minimal/src' make[1]: *** [Makefile:417: all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnuplot-5.2.5/minimal' make: *** [Makefile:355: all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FBcIJo (%build)
Without a further look I think that you got this: https://github.com/gnuplot/gnuplot/commit/0508c9c59d27cd32529fa2ddfc440a618f6a8cca#diff-2d506530da12533b1582fe5359bb08b1 The patch is simple and it should fix the issue.
- Not needed: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Bump to 1.9 (released 3 days ago) - Add the version-release info in your %changelog entry - Don't mix tabs and spaces, use one only - Capitalize the summary 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libcerf/review-libcerf/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. [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 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]: 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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcerf- debuginfo , libcerf-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: libcerf-1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libcerf-devel-1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libcerf-debuginfo-1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libcerf-debugsource-1.9-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm libcerf-1.9-1.fc30.src.rpm libcerf.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C a library that provides complex error functions libcerf.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libcerf.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcerf.so.1.9 exit.5 libcerf-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libcerf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libcerf-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libcerf.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C a library that provides complex error functions libcerf.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog libcerf.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > - Not needed: > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Blame emacs default template. :-) Fixed. > - Bump to 1.9 (released 3 days ago) I hate when this happens. :-) Fixed. > - Add the version-release info in your %changelog entry I had a new version with that fixed but forgot to upload it. Done. > - Don't mix tabs and spaces, use one only "M-x untabify" to the rescue. :-) > - Capitalize the summary Done. spec: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/libcerf.spec srpm: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/libcerf-1.9-1.fc29.src.rpm
Package approved.
I think that the status should still be assigned and not post.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libcerf
libcerf-1.9-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-59933f9560
libcerf-1.9-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f578cbef6f
libcerf-1.9-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-59933f9560
libcerf-1.9-3.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-f578cbef6f
libcerf-1.9-3.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcerf 1.8 and 1.9 are broken. Please downggrade to 1.7 before 1.10 release. http://apps.jcns.fz-juelich.de/doku/sc/libcerf Dmitri.
libcerf-1.9-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please update libcerf to 1.11 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 are broken. Dmitri.
libcerf-1.11-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb974b5d2a
libcerf-1.11-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d92a998d87
I saw the 1.10 release but chose to ignore it since it did not fix the original problem. This time all should work (knock on the wood...). :-)
Created attachment 1517306 [details] Correct Voigt profile from gnuplot's cerf.dem
libcerf-1.11-1.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-d92a998d87
libcerf-1.11-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-cb974b5d2a
libcerf-1.11-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcerf-1.11-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.