Spec URL: https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/neteler/kealib/fedora-32-x86_64/01652455-kealib/kealib-1.4.13-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: KEALib is a project to provide an implementation of the GDAL specification within the the HDF5 file format. Specifically, the format will support raster attribute tables (commonly not included within other formats), image pyramids, GDAL meta-data, in-built statistics while also providing large file handling with compression used throughout the file. Being based on the HDF5 standard, it will also provide a base from which other formats could be derived and will be a good choice for long term data archiving. An independent software library (KEALib) has been provided through which complete access to the KEA image format is provided alongside a GDAL driver allowing KEA images to be used through any GDAL supported software. Ref: Bunting, P., & Gillingham, S. (2013). The KEA image file format. Computers and Geosciences, 57, 54-58. Fedora Account System Username: neteler
>Group: Sciences/Geosciences Not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections >%description >KEALib is a project to provide an implementation of the GDAL specification within the the HDF5 file format. Specifically, the format will support... Whoa. The description should be wrapped so that all lines are 80 characters max. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description >mkdir -p %{_target_platform} >pushd %{_target_platform} Not needed. CMake out-of-source builds are now the default. >%cmake \ > -DLIBDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 \ > -DGDAL_LIB_PATH:PATH=/usr/lib64 \ Fedora still builds packages for some 32-bit architectures (i686 and armv7hl, to be precise) - use "%{_libdir}" here. >make %{?_smp_mflags} -C %{_target_platform} Use "%cmake_build" instead. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/ >make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install Try "%cmake_install" instead. >mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/gdalplugins/ >mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/libkea* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ >mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/gdalplugins/* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/gdalplugins/ Add some check whether "%{_prefix}/lib" is different than "%{_libdir}" so that this doesn't fail on 32-bit architectures. Alternatively, try patching the CMakeLists. >%files >%{_libdir}/libkea.so* >%{_includedir}/libkea Un-versioned .so files and C/C++ headers should go in a -devel package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
Thanks for your review, Artur. (In reply to Artur Frenszek-Iwicki from comment #1) > >Group: Sciences/Geosciences > Not used in Fedora. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections removed. > >%description > >KEALib is a project to provide an implementation of the GDAL specification within the the HDF5 file format. Specifically, the format will support... > Whoa. The description should be wrapped so that all lines are 80 characters > max. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_summary_and_description shunk and line wrapping fixed. > >mkdir -p %{_target_platform} > >pushd %{_target_platform} > Not needed. CMake out-of-source builds are now the default. removed. > >%cmake \ > > -DLIBDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 \ > > -DGDAL_LIB_PATH:PATH=/usr/lib64 \ > Fedora still builds packages for some 32-bit architectures (i686 and > armv7hl, to be precise) - use "%{_libdir}" here. removed as being ignored anyway by KEA. > >make %{?_smp_mflags} -C %{_target_platform} > Use "%cmake_build" instead. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/ updated. > >make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install > Try "%cmake_install" instead. updated. > >mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/gdalplugins/ > >mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/libkea* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ > >mv %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/gdalplugins/* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/gdalplugins/ > Add some check whether "%{_prefix}/lib" is different than "%{_libdir}" so > that this doesn't fail on 32-bit architectures. Alternatively, try patching > the CMakeLists. I tried both to no avail. I must admit that I am not really familiar with cmake. This trick is also ignored by KEA: # fix wrong lib entry sed -i 's+set (PROJECT_LIBRARY_DIR lib)+set (PROJECT_LIBRARY_DIR %{_lib})+g' %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/CMakeLists.txt > >%files > >%{_libdir}/libkea.so* > >%{_includedir}/libkea > Un-versioned .so files and C/C++ headers should go in a -devel package. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages fixed. Now it also builds on F33 and rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neteler/kealib/build/1653821/ Updated SPEC file: https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib.spec
>%package devel >Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} This cannot be satisfied, since there's no kealib-libs subpackage. Did you mean "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"? Or perhaps "kea-libs%{?_isa}"? >%cmake \ > -DHDF5_LIB_PATH:PATH=/usr/lib \ /usr/lib -> %{_libdir} >%cmake \ -DGDAL_INCLUDE_DIR:PATH=/usr/include/gdal \ -DHDF5_INCLUDE_DIR:PATH=/usr/include \ /usr/include -> %{_includedir} >%cmake_build > >%cmake_install Both of these happen during %build. Split into %build and %install sections. Also, you need to provide both the spec and an SRPM for the review.
Updated SPEC file, following your suggestions (thanks!): - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib.spec - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib-1.4.13-2.fc32.src.rpm - build test on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neteler/kealib/build/1663359/
Finishing this review or do you need help? - Use libdir here too: -DHDF5_LIB_PATH:PATH=/usr/lib \ -DHDF5_LIB_PATH:PATH=%{_libdir} \ - %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} is not needed here, at each stage, prep build and install, you are cd to this directory, so you can use CMakeLists.txt and . directly: %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/CMakeLists.txt %cmake […] %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} - In order to avoid untintentional SONAME bump, we recommend not globbing the major soname version in library. Be more specific instead: %{_libdir}/libkea.so.1* - You must install the LICENSE.txt with %license in %files - You should provide README.md with %doc in %files
Thanks for your review, here the updated SPEC/SRPM files, following your suggestions: - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib.spec - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib-1.4.13-3.fc32.src.rpm - test built on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neteler/kealib/build/1696057/
- Do not repeat the name in the Summary: Summary: HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kealib/review- kealib/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. [-]: 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 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]: 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. [-]: 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: kealib-1.4.13-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm kealib-devel-1.4.13-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm kealib-debuginfo-1.4.13-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm kealib-debugsource-1.4.13-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm kealib-1.4.13-3.fc34.src.rpm kealib.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kealib/README.md kealib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kealib-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kea-config kealib.src:59: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libkea* kealib.src:60: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/gdalplugins/* 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
Thanks for approving the package. What is the next step here?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors Start from step 7. tl;dr: $ fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 # Requests are processed manually - wait for confirmation e-mail $ fedpkg clone kealib $ cd kealib/ $ fedpkg import PATH_TO_SRPM
Thanks for your pointer. Unfortunately I seem to have missed the train: fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago Could you please re-approve it? Sorry about this...
Gentle ping to Robert-André Mauchin.
So, it's been a year since the last comment. Are you still interested in packaging this?
I'd continue but fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago
Marking Robert for NEEDINFO.
(In reply to markusN from comment #13) > I'd continue but > > fedpkg request-repo kealib 1876864 > Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over > 60 days ago Reapproved
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kealib
The package has been built and is available in the repositories for Fedora 40, 39 and 38. I'll take the liberty of closing this ticket.