Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Communication library between Cura components, Lulzbot fork Fedora Account System Username: spot This is a new BuildRequires/Requires for cura-lulzbot, since it hasn't caught up with the current libarcus bits.
Will libsavitar-lulzbot be also needed?
I've noticed the LGPLv3+ license for the main package vs AGPLv3+ in the devel package. Seems like a forgotten remark in the original libarcus package as well.
Please update the summaries of subpackages to mention libarcus-lulzbot instead of plain libarcus. %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-arcus} -> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-arcus-lulzbot}
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Will libsavitar-lulzbot be also needed? It does not seem to be needed at this time.
Please fix the above mentioned problems, most notably the license tag. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 30720 bytes in 7 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 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: [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL but documented. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Not possible. [-]: 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: libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libarcus-lulzbot-devel-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm python3-arcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libarcus-lulzbot-debugsource-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-1.fc31.src.rpm libarcus-lulzbot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Arcus -> Arius, Argus, Arcs libarcus-lulzbot-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Arcus -> Arius, Argus, Arcs python3-arcus-lulzbot.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libArcus -> millibars libarcus-lulzbot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Arcus -> Arius, Argus, Arcs libarcus-lulzbot.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12.tar.gz 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo-3.6.12-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-arcus-lulzbot: /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/Arcus-lulzbot.so Expected. Requires -------- libarcus-lulzbot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libprotobuf.so.17()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libarcus-lulzbot-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libArcus-lulzbot.so.3()(64bit) libarcus-lulzbot(x86-64) python3-arcus-lulzbot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libprotobuf.so.17()(64bit) libpython3.7m.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) python3-sip rtld(GNU_HASH) libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarcus-lulzbot-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libarcus-lulzbot: libArcus-lulzbot.so.3()(64bit) libarcus-lulzbot libarcus-lulzbot(x86-64) libarcus-lulzbot-devel: cmake(Arcus-lulzbot) libarcus-lulzbot-devel libarcus-lulzbot-devel(x86-64) python3-arcus-lulzbot: python3-arcus-lulzbot python3-arcus-lulzbot(x86-64) libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo libarcus-lulzbot-debuginfo(x86-64) libarcus-lulzbot-debugsource: libarcus-lulzbot-debugsource libarcus-lulzbot-debugsource(x86-64)
All fixes applied: New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot.spec New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-2.fc30.src.rpm
> Please update the summaries of subpackages to mention libarcus-lulzbot instead of plain libarcus. This seems unchanged.
Added info about lulzbot fork to subpackage summaries: New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot.spec New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/libarcus-lulzbot-3.6.12-3.fc30.src.rpm
Thanks. Package is APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libarcus-lulzbot
Thanks for the review. Only need this one in rawhide atm, so I'm closing this out. Miro, if you update libarcus in stable branches, let me know, so I can request branches other than rawhide for this.
Will do. CC'ing Gabriel Féron, who is now cura co-maintainer.