Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/flamethrower/raw/fedora/flamethrower.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pemensik/DNS-OARC/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01031731-flamethrower/flamethrower-0.10-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A DNS performance and functional testing utility Fedora Account System Username: pemensik COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pemensik/DNS-OARC/
Some general hints: Drop this line: - %global commit v%{version} Simplify those lines: - URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower - Source0: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz + URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name} + Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz - Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch + Patch1: %{name}-0.10-libuv.patch - make %{?_smp_mflags} + %make_build Why does %make_install not work though cmake is used to generate a useful Makefile?
I'd even suggest to use: + Source0: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
- Please add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed # Flame requires explicit uv link Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch - Consider specifying the mode at install: install -pDm 0755 flame ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_sbindir}/flame install -pDm 0755 libflamecore.so ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/libflamecore.so popd install -pDm 0644 man/flame.1 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/man1/flame.1 - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line: flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Flamethrower is a small, fast, configurable tool for functional testing, benchmarking, flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C and stress testing DNS servers and networks. It supports IPv4, IPv6, UDP and TCP, flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It was built as an alternative to dnsperf, and many of the command line options are compatible. - Not needed, lib dependencies are automatically detected: Requires: ldns%{?_isa} Requires: libuv%{?_isa} 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat License". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/flamethrower/review- flamethrower/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. [-]: 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 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: flamethrower-0.10-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm flamethrower-debuginfo-0.10-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm flamethrower-debugsource-0.10-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm flamethrower-0.10-1.fc32.src.rpm flamethrower.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libuv(x86-64) flamethrower.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark flamethrower.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsperf -> dispenser flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C Flamethrower is a small, fast, configurable tool for functional testing, benchmarking, flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C and stress testing DNS servers and networks. It supports IPv4, IPv6, UDP and TCP, flamethrower.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It was built as an alternative to dnsperf, and many of the command line options are compatible. flamethrower.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libflamecore.so libflamecore.so flamethrower.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/flame.1.gz flamethrower.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark flamethrower.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsperf -> dispenser flamethrower.src: E: description-line-too-long C Flamethrower is a small, fast, configurable tool for functional testing, benchmarking, flamethrower.src: E: description-line-too-long C and stress testing DNS servers and networks. It supports IPv4, IPv6, UDP and TCP, flamethrower.src: E: description-line-too-long C It was built as an alternative to dnsperf, and many of the command line options are compatible. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 5 warnings.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > Some general hints: > > Drop this line: > - %global commit v%{version} > > Simplify those lines: > - URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower > - Source0: > https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar. > gz > + URL: https://github.com/DNS-OARC/%{name} > + Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-v%{version}.tar.gz This is good, I think it should be used. > > - Patch1: flamethrower-0.10-libuv.patch > + Patch1: %{name}-0.10-libuv.patch No, I do no think %{name} is useful when listing files. It should be named as it is. Those files are named the same on filesystem. Changing spec file name does not rename them. It is more handy to just select and paste on full form. > > - make %{?_smp_mflags} > + %make_build > > Why does %make_install not work though cmake is used to generate a useful > Makefile? No rules where it should be installed was given I suppose. It just lacks install target.
Current patch link to pull request https://github.com/DNS-OARC/flamethrower/pull/19 Would update spec tomorrow, thank you guys!
Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/flamethrower/raw/fedora/flamethrower.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pemensik/DNS-OARC/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01044585-flamethrower/flamethrower-0.10-2.fc32.src.rpm Fixed hopefully all issues mentioned.
- As said before, Requires: ldns%{?_isa} Requires: libuv%{?_isa} are not needed, the libs are picked up automatically, you can check this by doing: rpm -q --requires -p flamethrower-0.10-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq you'll see the .so being required. Package is accepted, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Ah, thought they are recommended to include. Checked guidelines explcitly say not to be used. So okay, removed them. Thank you for review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flamethrower
FEDORA-2019-07c9cee18f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-07c9cee18f
FEDORA-2019-a251c59e6c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a251c59e6c
FEDORA-2019-898440f612 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-898440f612
flamethrower-0.10-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-898440f612
flamethrower-0.10-3.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-a251c59e6c
flamethrower-0.10-3.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-2019-07c9cee18f
flamethrower-0.10-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
flamethrower-0.10-3.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
flamethrower-0.10-3.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.