Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/avigne/xschem/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00859391-xschem/xschem.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/avigne/xschem/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00859391-xschem/xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: xschem is a schematic capture program, it allows creation of hierarchical representation of circuits with a top down approach. A VHDL or Verilog or Spice netlist can be generated from the drawn schematic, allowing the simulation of the circuit. Fedora Account System Username: avigne
- --prefix=/usr → --prefix=%{_prefix} - The build doesn't respect Fedora build flags, use: %build sed -i "s|USER_CFLAGS = -DGENCALL -DRUNTIME -g|USER_CFLAGS = %{optflags}|" scconfig/Makefile sed -i "s|USER_LDFLAGS =|USER_LDFLAGS = %{__global_ldflags}|" scconfig/Makefile - Use: %files doc %{_docdir}/%{name} And remove %{_docdir}/%{name} from the main package - Do not include the INSTALL file with %doc - Be more specific here: %{_mandir}/man1/xschem.1* Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/xschem See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4014080 bytes in 264 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Public License (v8)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 499 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xschem/review- xschem/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/man/man1(filesystem) [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. [-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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 xschem- doc , xschem-debuginfo , xschem-debugsource [?]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4392960 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm xschem-doc-2.8.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm xschem-debuginfo-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm xschem-debugsource-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.src.rpm xschem.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, net-list, Listerine xschem.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 xschem.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL xschem-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL xschem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, net-list, Listerine xschem.src:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - --prefix=/usr → --prefix=%{_prefix} > done > - The build doesn't respect Fedora build flags, use: > > %build > sed -i "s|USER_CFLAGS = -DGENCALL -DRUNTIME -g|USER_CFLAGS = %{optflags}|" > scconfig/Makefile > sed -i "s|USER_LDFLAGS =|USER_LDFLAGS = %{__global_ldflags}|" > scconfig/Makefile > I agree, the Fedora build flags should be incorporated, but not the way you propose... I checked with upstream and learned there is a mechanism for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, and use it now ./"configure" --CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" --LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" \ --prefix=%{_prefix} --symbols > - Use: > > %files doc > %{_docdir}/%{name} > > And remove %{_docdir}/%{name} from the main package > done > - Do not include the INSTALL file with %doc done > > - Be more specific here: > > %{_mandir}/man1/xschem.1* done > > > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/xschem > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles > - 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. > Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license This is not a GPL license text, but some author text. Should I include this file using %license directive ? > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 4014080 bytes in 264 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > > ===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 > or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "*No copyright* > Creative Commons CC0 Public License (v8)", "GPL (v2 or later)", > "Unknown or generated". 499 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xschem/review- > xschem/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: > /usr/share/man/man1(filesystem) > [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. This is a GUI application, but desktop integration is not proposed yet. Should work it with upstream, for a future release... > [-]: 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. > [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [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 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 xschem- > doc , xschem-debuginfo , xschem-debugsource > [?]: 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: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4392960 bytes in /usr/share > [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-doc-2.8.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm > xschem-debuginfo-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-debugsource-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.src.rpm > xschem.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, > net-list, Listerine > xschem.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 > xschem.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL > xschem-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL > xschem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, > net-list, Listerine > xschem.src:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/avigne/xschem/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00860004-xschem/xschem.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/avigne/xschem/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00860004-xschem/xschem-2.8.2-2.fc30.src.rpm Description: xschem is a schematic capture program, it allows creation of hierarchical representation of circuits with a top down approach. A VHDL or Verilog or Spice netlist can be generated from the drawn schematic, allowing the simulation of the circuit. Fedora Account System Username: avigne
Package approved.
Thanks a lot Robert-Andre. You rock ! SCM requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9816 just before branching ?
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xschem