Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/mcqd/mcqd.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/mcqd/mcqd-0-0.1.20130220.fc31.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package computes MaxCliqueDyn, a fast exact algorithm for finding a maximum clique in an undirected graph.
> Release: 0.1.20130220%{?dist} I think the date in the release should be the date when you pulled the tarball from upstream, not the date when the tarball was created by upstream (especially if I see newer changes in the git https://gitlab.com/janezkonc/mcqd/ ). But that is not very important since this detail is not explicitly clarified in the packaging guidelines. I see you only packaged only the binary file which is kind of example program. I am wondering whether it would make sense to package also the header files in the -devel subpackage, if you plan to use that algorithm in some of your work/packages/tools. > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_bindir} > cp -p %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir} You should use "install" instead of "cp" and "mkdir". > %check > ./mcqd test.clq I do not see the mcqd binary to produce exit code if it fails (but I am not a C++ programmer so I might be missing something). So I think for the check to be useful, you should check that the produced output is sane, for example the output contains "Maximum clique:" twice or something like that. Otherwise, it looks good to me.
(In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #1) > I think the date in the release should be the date when you pulled the > tarball from upstream, not the date when the tarball was created by upstream > (especially if I see newer changes in the git > https://gitlab.com/janezkonc/mcqd/ ). But that is not very important since > this detail is not explicitly clarified in the packaging guidelines. Hmmm, that's an interesting point of view. I've always thought of those dates as giving information about the last time upstream did something to the code, hence the date of the commit. You're right though; the guidelines just say "the date" without specifying *which* date, leaving that open for interpretation. > I see you only packaged only the binary file which is kind of example > program. I am wondering whether it would make sense to package also the > header files in the -devel subpackage, if you plan to use that algorithm in > some of your work/packages/tools. Yes, you are absolutely right. I have made that change. > You should use "install" instead of "cp" and "mkdir". Why do you think so? I've always found install kind of clunky to use, so I prefer to use cp. Plus install cannot copy symbolic links, just what they point to; cp does not have that limitation. > I do not see the mcqd binary to produce exit code if it fails (but I am not > a C++ programmer so I might be missing something). So I think for the check > to be useful, you should check that the produced output is sane, for example > the output contains "Maximum clique:" twice or something like that. Yes, you are correct. I have attempted to check this. Thanks for the careful review! New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/mcqd/mcqd.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/mcqd/mcqd-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.src.rpm
Looks good to me. Fedora review log follows: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jjelen/devel/fedora/pcsc-lite- acsccid/1727502-mcqd/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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [x]: 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 mcqd [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: 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: mcqd-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-devel-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-tool-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-debugsource-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.src.rpm mcqd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) undirected -> directed, uncorrected, indirect mcqd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undirected -> directed, uncorrected, indirect mcqd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mcqd-tool.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undirected -> directed, uncorrected, indirect mcqd-tool.x86_64: W: no-documentation mcqd-tool.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcqd mcqd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) undirected -> directed, uncorrected, indirect mcqd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US undirected -> directed, uncorrected, indirect 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mcqd-tool-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm mcqd-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc31.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/janezkonc/mcqd/-/archive/9ab9717cf7d1be1a85b165a8eacb71b9e5831113/mcqd-9ab9717.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc3fcca148ab22a68ec27466e58ccb2d88d00408bf7259a54f72a41b099e87a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc3fcca148ab22a68ec27466e58ccb2d88d00408bf7259a54f72a41b099e87a0 Requires -------- mcqd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mcqd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmcqd.so.0()(64bit) mcqd(x86-64) mcqd-tool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libmcqd.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) mcqd(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) mcqd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mcqd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mcqd: libmcqd.so.0()(64bit) mcqd mcqd(x86-64) mcqd-devel: mcqd-devel mcqd-devel(x86-64) mcqd-tool: mcqd-tool mcqd-tool(x86-64) mcqd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mcqd-debuginfo mcqd-debuginfo(x86-64) mcqd-debugsource: mcqd-debugsource mcqd-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1727502 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you, Jakub! I appreciate the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mcqd
FEDORA-2019-c9a63e3974 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c9a63e3974
mcqd-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-c9a63e3974
mcqd-1.0.0-1.20160901.9ab9717.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.