Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.src.rpm Description: Provides shared library to interface Pascal program with libraw. Fedora Account System Username: mattia Note that this package splits libpasraw out of libpasastro, so it declares a Conflict against libpasastro <= 1.2. When this is ready to be released, I will update libpasastro to 1.3.
Link to Koji's scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42467601 Link to COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Astronomy/build/1305339/
Created attachment 1670156 [details] ldflags patch
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - LICENSE file reports a GPLv3 - incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc ['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc'] - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link `libpasraw.so` pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1` The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed together the unversioned library. Ask to upstream. - Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use only %doc to mark the documentation files. - Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the LDLAGS. - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i guess it's better this way: new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by new `libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because they're never installed at the same time. ===== 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [?]: 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 2 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]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: libpasraw-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-debugsource-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.src.rpm libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc ['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc'] libpasraw.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libpasraw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). libpasraw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc ['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc'] libpasraw.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1 /lib64/libstdc++.so.6 libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1 /lib64/libm.so.6 libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw/archive/dbbe4ccc717f9aed4efd0841ceb88a5825c3463d/libpasraw-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 108a324450932fb8c6c84193e8bb3b45c6b3db9e7b757acf986c33d0b4ddf40c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ea9b5880398177e769c163a055fc42842bf9190150a3afc8d6cc872380821d69 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- libpasraw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libraw.so.19()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpasraw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpasraw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libpasraw: libpasraw libpasraw(x86-64) libpasraw.so.1()(64bit) libpasraw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libpasraw-debuginfo libpasraw-debuginfo(x86-64) libpasraw-debugsource: libpasraw-debugsource libpasraw-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1813563 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Antonio T. (sagitter) from comment #3) > > - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i > guess it's better this way: > > new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must > > BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 > Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 > Actually, `Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1` is redundant.
Thanks for the review, but I don't agree with all points: > - LICENSE file reports a GPLv3 I've reported upstream that LICENSE file (GPLv3+) is incoherent wit copyright file (GPLv2+) > - incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc ['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc'] I'll fix it > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ I'll fix it > - Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link `libpasraw.so` pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1` > The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed together the unversioned library. > Ask to upstream. Why? The package doesn't create an unversioned library and there's no need for it or for a -devel subpackage. > - Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use only %doc to mark the documentation files. > - Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the LDLAGS. Thanks for the patch > - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i guess it's better this way: > > new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must > > BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 > Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by new `libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, > so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because they're never installed at the same time. I don't see the rationale for this. We have a packaging guideline that covers this case: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_splitting_packages If the new package should be installable independently of whether the original package is installed, a versioned conflict is allowed
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw-1.3.0-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: Provides shared library to interface Pascal program with libraw. Fedora Account System Username: mattia
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #5) > > > - Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link `libpasraw.so` pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1` > > The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed together the unversioned library. > > Ask to upstream. > Why? The package doesn't create an unversioned library and there's no need > for it or for a -devel subpackage. This library is born to be a `private library`; it has been separated by original software and it became a independent library now, must provide -devel files for other project which use it in buildtime/runtime. Althought, i don't understand yet what software really needs `libpasraw` among that ones released by upstream. > > > - Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use only %doc to mark the documentation files. > > > > - Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the LDLAGS. > Thanks for the patch > > > - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i guess it's better this way: > > > > new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must > > > > BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > > > meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by new `libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, > > so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because they're never installed at the same time. > I don't see the rationale for this. We have a packaging guideline that > covers this case: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ > #_splitting_packages > If the new package should be installable independently of whether the > original package is installed, a versioned conflict is allowed It's true; but the original package (libpasastro), when updated, will not be in conflict anymore with `libpasraw`. Since libpasastro-1.3.0 and libpasraw-1.3.0 RPMs will be released together, i presume, then the conflict `libpasatro-1.2* vs libpasraw-1.3.0` never exists.
(In reply to Antonio T. (sagitter) from comment #7) > (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #5) > > > > > - Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link `libpasraw.so` pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1` > > > The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed together the unversioned library. > > > Ask to upstream. > > Why? The package doesn't create an unversioned library and there's no need > > for it or for a -devel subpackage. > > This library is born to be a `private library`; it has been separated by > original software and it became a independent library now, must provide > -devel files for other project which use it in buildtime/runtime. > Althought, i don't understand yet what software really needs `libpasraw` > among that ones released by upstream. I've asked on the packaging mailing list if this is really mandatory... there are plenty of private libraries which don't provide their unversioned copy in a -devel subpackage and I can't find anything that says so in the guidelines. The other projects from the same author also don't require this lib at build time. > > > > > > - Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use only %doc to mark the documentation files. > > > > > > > - Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the LDLAGS. > > Thanks for the patch > > > > > - This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i guess it's better this way: > > > > > > new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must > > > > > > BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > > Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1 > > > > > > meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by new `libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, > > > so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because they're never installed at the same time. > > I don't see the rationale for this. We have a packaging guideline that > > covers this case: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ > > #_splitting_packages > > If the new package should be installable independently of whether the > > original package is installed, a versioned conflict is allowed > > It's true; but the original package (libpasastro), when updated, will not be > in conflict anymore with `libpasraw`. Since libpasastro-1.3.0 and > libpasraw-1.3.0 RPMs will be released together, i presume, then the conflict > `libpasatro-1.2* vs libpasraw-1.3.0` never exists. One could have libpasastro-1.2 installed and run `dnf install libpasraw` and that should end in a conflict (I'm not sure if with libpasastro-1.3 released dnf will update the conflicting dependency). But if one doesn't have libpasastro installed, they should not be forced to install it because it's listed as a requirement from libpasraw.
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #8) > I've asked on the packaging mailing list if this is really mandatory... > there are plenty of private libraries which don't provide their unversioned > copy in a -devel subpackage and I can't find anything that says so in the > guidelines. > The other projects from the same author also don't require this lib at build > time. /me puts on his FPC hat I don't think the argument that "it's just a private library used by some associated projects" counts here, since it's installed into %{_libdir} directly / publicly, and not into a "private" subdirectory of %{_libdir}. How are programs using this library? I assume they are dlopen()ing it, otherwise not having an unversioned .so or header files doesn't make any sense to me.
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #9) > (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #8) > > I've asked on the packaging mailing list if this is really mandatory... > > there are plenty of private libraries which don't provide their unversioned > > copy in a -devel subpackage and I can't find anything that says so in the > > guidelines. > > The other projects from the same author also don't require this lib at build > > time. > > /me puts on his FPC hat > > I don't think the argument that "it's just a private library used by some > associated projects" counts here, since it's installed into %{_libdir} > directly / publicly, and not into a "private" subdirectory of %{_libdir}. > > How are programs using this library? I assume they are dlopen()ing it, > otherwise not having an unversioned .so or header files doesn't make any > sense to me. This library is loaded in Pascal source code with `librawname='libpasraw.so.1';` and `libraw := LoadLibrary(librawname);`, it's not dinamically linked at build time. Here's an example of the code which needs it: https://github.com/pchev/ccdciel/blob/9ecfac2067ca8546b09ed9641a86309b300e1158/src/u_libraw.pas From https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw/blob/master/raw/Readme.txt : This library exist because we cannot link a C++ object directly from Pascal. It export C function we can link from Pascal to load a raw buffer and return a pointer to the raw data.
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw-1.3.0-3.fc33.src.rpm Description: Provides shared library to interface Pascal program with libraw. Fedora Account System Username: mattia Updated as you desire.
- libpasraw-1.3.0-3.fc33.src.rpm does not exist. - %{forgesource} ?? - "make %{_smp_mflags} arch_flags="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"" Better: %build %make_build arch_flags="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"
> This library is loaded in Pascal source code with `librawname='libpasraw.so.1';` and `libraw := LoadLibrary(librawname);`, it's not dinamically linked at build time. This is what I meant - it's loaded using something like "dlopen()" (or the Pascal equivalent of it). So it really is not a shared library in the usual sense, at least in my opinion. Since there are also no headers and other development stuff (e.g. pkgconfig files) for this library, I'd suggest to move it into a "private" location (e.g. into %{_libdir}/libpasraw/), and patch dependent packages to load it from there instead. (You also got a similar answer on your devel@ post.)
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/libpasraw-1.3.0-4.fc33.src.rpm Description: Provides shared library to interface Pascal program with libraw. Fedora Account System Username: mattia (In reply to Antonio T. (sagitter) from comment #12) > - libpasraw-1.3.0-3.fc33.src.rpm does not exist. My fault, I had uploaded the wrong file, now it should be ok > > - %{forgesource} ?? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control > > - "make %{_smp_mflags} arch_flags="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}"" > > Better: > > %build > %make_build arch_flags="%{optflags}" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" Done
Package approved. 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]: 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". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/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 3 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: libpasraw-1.3.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-devel-1.3.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-debugsource-1.3.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm libpasraw-1.3.0-4.fc33.src.rpm libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-4.fc33.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw, library libpasraw.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> libpasraw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw/archive/v1.3.0/libpasraw-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 108a324450932fb8c6c84193e8bb3b45c6b3db9e7b757acf986c33d0b4ddf40c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 108a324450932fb8c6c84193e8bb3b45c6b3db9e7b757acf986c33d0b4ddf40c Requires -------- libpasraw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libraw.so.19()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpasraw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpasraw(x86-64) libpasraw.so.1()(64bit) libpasraw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpasraw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libpasraw: libpasraw libpasraw(x86-64) libpasraw.so.1()(64bit) libpasraw-devel: libpasraw-devel libpasraw-devel(x86-64) libpasraw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libpasraw-debuginfo libpasraw-debuginfo(x86-64) libpasraw-debugsource: libpasraw-debugsource libpasraw-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1813563 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Java, R, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #14) > > > > - %{forgesource} ?? > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_using_forges_hosted_revision_control > Ah! Never used.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libpasraw
Thanks. Closed by https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4cd3d3fcb3