SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libdrm-armada.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libdrm-armada-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc30.src.rpm Description: Marvell Armada libdrm buffer object management module.
- Just rm the *.la in install instead of: %exclude %{_libdir}/libdrm_armada.la find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -print -delete - Group: is not used in Fedora - 20180720: should be the date you *took* the snapshot, not the date of the commit - How do you know the version is 2.0.0? Seems to be 2.0.3 from the Debian changelog. - Remove the dot at the end of summary: libdrm-armada-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Development files for libdrm-armada. 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: "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)", "Expat License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libdrm-armada/review-libdrm- armada/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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/libdrm(libdrm- devel) [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. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 libdrm- armada-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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdrm-armada-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc31.x86_64.rpm libdrm-armada-devel-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc31.x86_64.rpm libdrm-armada-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc31.x86_64.rpm libdrm-armada-debugsource-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc31.x86_64.rpm libdrm-armada-2.0.0-1.20180720git607c697.fc31.src.rpm libdrm-armada.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdrm-armada-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libdrm-armada/libdrm-armada-libs/liblibdrm-armada libdrm-armada-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Development files for libdrm-armada. libdrm-armada-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdrm-armada.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libdrm_armada-2.0.0.tar.bz2 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks for the review: (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Just rm the *.la in install instead of: > > %exclude %{_libdir}/libdrm_armada.la > > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -print -delete Why? It just seems more complex for no apparent benefit. > - Group: is not used in Fedora Will fix. > - 20180720: should be the date you *took* the snapshot, not the date of the > commit Why? It doesn't make much sense to me and the guidelines don't seem to suggest anything like that: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots > - How do you know the version is 2.0.0? Seems to be 2.0.3 from the Debian > changelog. That's what the configure.ac (and thus "make dist") uses. I guess you're right and the debian/changelog is more relevant. However, this would probably be a post-2.0.2 & pre-2.0.3 shapshot, since entries get added to 2.0.3 entry. > - Remove the dot at the end of summary: > > libdrm-armada-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Development files > for libdrm-armada. Will fix.
>> - 20180720: should be the date you *took* the snapshot, not the date of the >> commit > >Why? It doesn't make much sense to me and the guidelines don't seem to suggest anything like that: > >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots It's not clear in the page but it was clear in the FPC discussions leading to that. 17:04:58 <tibbs> The date is the date when you made the snapshot. Nothing more. https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-09-08/fpc.2016-09-08-16.00.log.html
Thanks. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/libdrm-armada.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/libdrm-armada-2.0.0-1.20190424git607c697.fc30.src.rpm Hopefully it's somewhat better now. Dropped the Group tag and bumped the snapshot date. I stuck with the 2.0.0 version, because that's what the configure uses and I'd prefer no to re-roll the tarball.
Still a dot at the end of the summary: %package devel Summary: Development files for libdrm-armada. Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdrm-armada
Imported and built. Thanks.