Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcinslusarz/packages/master/libpmemobj-cpp/libpmemobj-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcinslusarz/packages/raw/master/libpmemobj-cpp/libpmemobj-cpp-1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: This package contains header files for libpmemobj C++ bindings and C++ containers built on top of them. libpmemobj-cpp became a separate project from PMDK with the 1.5 release. Fedora Account System Username: marcinslusarz
Why the usage of: %global debug_package %{nil} ...this breaks standard profiling and debug flows. Have you already run fedora-review and addressed the reported issues? Is there a plan or list of dependencies identified before PMDK can be built on other architectures? I would file bugzilla's for those requirements as recommended here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support ...and then reference them in the spec file.
(In reply to Dan Williams from comment #1) > Why the usage of: > > %global debug_package %{nil} > > ...this breaks standard profiling and debug flows. libpmemobj-cpp is header-only library, so there is no need for debug packages. > Have you already run fedora-review and addressed the reported issues? No, not yet. I'm working on that. > Is there a plan or list of dependencies identified before PMDK can be built > on other architectures? I would file bugzilla's for those requirements as > recommended here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Architecture_Support > > ...and then reference them in the spec file. PMDK spec already has the list of bugs (#1340634, #1340635, #1340636, #1340637). Do I have to copy this list here?
Fedora-review report: ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 66 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mslusarz/packages /libpmemobj-cpp/libpmemobj-cpp/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 [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. No idea what this means. [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Dependency of this package (libpmemobj) is x86_64-only. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 libpmemobj++-devel , libpmemobj++-doc [x]: 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]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3870720 bytes in /usr/share Those files are in libpmemobj++-doc subpackage. I'm not sure how to change it to noarch. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: libpmemobj++-devel-1.5-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libpmemobj++-doc-1.5-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libpmemobj-cpp-1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm libpmemobj++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpmemobj -> memorabilia libpmemobj++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libpmemobj++-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpmemobj -> memorabilia libpmemobj++-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpmemobj -> memorabilia 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. False positives Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libpmemobj++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpmemobj -> memorabilia libpmemobj++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional libpmemobj++-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://pmem.io/pmdk/cpp_obj/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpmemobj++-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libpmemobj -> memorabilia libpmemobj++-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpmemobj -> memorabilia libpmemobj++-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://pmem.io/pmdk/cpp_obj/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Spelling errors are false positives. Invalid-url are bogus - rpmlint doesn't handle proxy settings correctly. Requires -------- libpmemobj++-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libpmemobj-devel pkgconfig(libpmemobj) libpmemobj++-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libpmemobj++-devel: libpmemobj++-devel libpmemobj++-devel(x86-64) libpmemobj++-static pkgconfig(libpmemobj++) libpmemobj++-doc: libpmemobj++-doc libpmemobj++-doc(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pmem/libpmemobj-cpp/archive/1.5.tar.gz#/libpmemobj-cpp-1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6254aa2fb77977f8b91998eb866216d2af22f4ccbffdfc7932df1dff151da61e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6254aa2fb77977f8b91998eb866216d2af22f4ccbffdfc7932df1dff151da61e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ./libpmemobj-cpp-1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Marcin Ślusarz from comment #2) > (In reply to Dan Williams from comment #1) > > Why the usage of: > > > > %global debug_package %{nil} > > > > ...this breaks standard profiling and debug flows. > > libpmemobj-cpp is header-only library, so there is no need for debug > packages. Ah, ok, I guess this is what happens when you get a Linux kernel dev to review a C++ package. > > Have you already run fedora-review and addressed the reported issues? > > No, not yet. I'm working on that. Ok. > > Is there a plan or list of dependencies identified before PMDK can be built > > on other architectures? I would file bugzilla's for those requirements as > > recommended here: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > Guidelines#Architecture_Support > > > > ...and then reference them in the spec file. > > PMDK spec already has the list of bugs (#1340634, #1340635, #1340636, > #1340637). Do I have to copy this list here? Yes, just duplicate the same list in this spec file.
(In reply to Dan Williams from comment #4) > (In reply to Marcin Ślusarz from comment #2) > > (In reply to Dan Williams from comment #1) > > > Is there a plan or list of dependencies identified before PMDK can be built > > > on other architectures? I would file bugzilla's for those requirements as > > > recommended here: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > > Guidelines#Architecture_Support > > > > > > ...and then reference them in the spec file. > > > > PMDK spec already has the list of bugs (#1340634, #1340635, #1340636, > > #1340637). Do I have to copy this list here? > > Yes, just duplicate the same list in this spec file. Done
Nothing else to comment on this one, marking reviewed.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libpmemobj-cpp