Spec URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze.spec SRPM URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze-3.4-0.fc29.src.rpm Description: An open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic Blaze is an open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic. With its state-of-the-art Smart Expression Template implementation Blaze combines the elegance and ease of use of a domain-specific language with HPC-grade performance, making it one of the most intuitive and fastest C++ math libraries available. Fedora Account System Username: diehlpk TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31065395
- Start at 1: Release: 1%{?dist} - Move this to the devel subpackage: Requires: lapack Requires: openblas-devel Requires: boost - Group: is not used in Fedora - %{_usr}/share → %{_datadir} - Own: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/cmake
Robert-Andre, thanks for the remarks, I updated the spec file accordingly Spec URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze.spec SRPM URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze-3.4-1.fc29.src.rpm and here is the new koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31088282 Patrick
- You still have: Group: Development/Libraries/C and C++1 - You didn't change the release number in your %changelog entry - Shorten the summary: blaze.src: E: summary-too-long C An open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic - There are some weird binary files in the cmake dir: blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/3.12.2/CMakeDetermineCompilerABI_CXX.bin blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/3.12.2/CompilerIdCXX/a.out blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/FindOpenMP/ompver_CXX.bin blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/feature_tests.bin Is that supposed to be there? 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]: 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 "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/blaze/review-blaze/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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). [?]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: blaze-devel-3.4-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm blaze-3.4-1.fc30.src.rpm blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/3.12.2/CMakeDetermineCompilerABI_CXX.bin blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/3.12.2/CompilerIdCXX/a.out blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/FindOpenMP/ompver_CXX.bin blaze-devel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/include/blaze/CMakeFiles/feature_tests.bin blaze-devel.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/blaze-devel/INSTALL blaze.src: E: summary-too-long C An open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
I shortened the summary and rpmlint does not show errors or warning. [Patrick@thinpad BLAZE]$ rpmlint SPECS/blaze.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [Patrick@thinpad BLAZE]$ rpmlint SRPMS/blaze-3.4-1.fc29.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I updated the changelog and removed the group tag, sorry for missing that in the first attempt. You are right and the files should not be in the package and I removed them. Please find attached the updated Spec URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze.spec SRPM URL: https://diehlpk.fedorapeople.org/blaze-3.4-1.fc29.src.rpm and here is the new koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31108297 Best, Patrick
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blaze
blaze-3.4-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b9ad0bfe02
blaze-3.4-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b7e339c49e
blaze-3.4-1.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-b9ad0bfe02
blaze-3.4-1.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-b7e339c49e
blaze-3.4-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
blaze-3.4-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.