Created attachment 1655488 [details] RPM spec file Description: Fullscreen text mode manager for BOINC core client. Boinctui is a text mode version of standard boinc-manager. Boinctui based on curses library. Boinctui Homepage: https://github.com/suleman1971/boinctui Hi! This is my first package. I am creating a duplicate of the original boinctui ticket per Robert-André Mauchin's recommendation. I built Fedora packages via koji. I am requesting a sponsor. Thanks.
- Seems like a typo, remove this: /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog - Group: is not used in Fedora - Build fails + autoreconf -vif autoreconf: Entering directory `.' autoreconf: configure.in: not using Gettext autoreconf: running: aclocal --output=aclocal.m4t Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326. autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory Add: BuildRequires: automake Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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", "GPL (v3 or later)". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/boinctui/review-boinctui/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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: boinctui-2.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm boinctui-debuginfo-2.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm boinctui-debugsource-2.5.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm boinctui-2.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm boinctui.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fullscreen -> Full screen, Full-screen, Firescreen boinctui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fullscreen -> full screen, full-screen, firescreen boinctui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US boinc -> boink boinctui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gui -> GUI, goo, gun boinctui.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fullscreen -> Full screen, Full-screen, Firescreen boinctui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fullscreen -> full screen, full-screen, firescreen boinctui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US boinc -> boink boinctui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gui -> GUI, goo, gun 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Created attachment 1655491 [details] RPM spec file
If I remove the line for /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog, I get the following error: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /home/tim/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/boinctui-2.5.0-1.el7.x86_64 error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog
Here is a working build with the updated SPEC file: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41061262
(In reply to Timothy Mullican from comment #3) > If I remove the line for /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog, I get the > following error: > > Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files > /home/tim/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/boinctui-2.5.0-1.el7.x86_64 > error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog > > > RPM build errors: > Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > /usr/share/doc/boinctui/changelog That should not happen: %doc changelog is already including that file
rm -rf %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}/changelog at the end of %install or just reference it in %files: %files %doc %{_pkgdocdir}/changelog %license gpl-3.0.txt %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
Neither of those seemed to work (same error), but this did: %{_docdir}/%{name}/changelog
Created attachment 1655494 [details] RPM spec file
New build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41062984
(In reply to Timothy Mullican from comment #7) > Neither of those seemed to work (same error), but this did: > > %{_docdir}/%{name}/changelog How do you test your package? I've just built it with no error whatsoever. fedpkg --release f32 mockbuild --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-cleanup-after
koji build --scratch rawhide boinctui-2.5.0-1.el7.src.rpm
My bad, the unpackaged files error was shown using: rpmbuild -ba boinctui.spec
(In reply to Timothy Mullican from comment #11) > koji build --scratch rawhide boinctui-2.5.0-1.el7.src.rpm You can also use fedpkg for that: fedpkg --release f32 scratch-build --srpm Packahe is approved, you still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
BOINC client co-maintainer here. I am going to sponsor Timothy. Timothy, what do you think if we rename the package to boinc-tui? It is in order to have a more consistency when a user searches for "boinc" and he will get a list list boinc-client boinc-manager boinc-tui
Sounds good to me.
Created attachment 1681592 [details] Renamed SPEC file
Created attachment 1681593 [details] Renamed SRPM
I had to undo and do the fedora-review flag due error $ fedpkg request-repo boinc-tui 1795081 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #18) > I had to undo and do the fedora-review flag due error > $ fedpkg request-repo boinc-tui 1795081 > Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over > 60 days ago Refreshed it. Also if you have sponsored OP, it is he that should request the package.
boinc-tui is already in stable repositories