Spec Name or Url: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm Description: gpsd is a service daemon that mediates access to a GPS sensor connected to the host computer by serial or USB interface, making its data on the location/course/velocity of the sensor available to be queried on TCP port 2947 of the host computer. With gpsd, multiple GPS client applications (such as navigational and wardriving software) can share access to a GPS without contention or loss of data. Also, gpsd responds to queries with a format that is substantially easier to parse than NMEA 0183. Thanks in advance for the review! Note, I based the rpm on the spec that comes with gpsd, although I made it conform to fedora-extras requirements as much as possible. rpmlint complains about: E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib And this is due to 'config' files placed in /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults/ as per how the original rpm spec did things. The programs run fine (using the same defaults) without these files, so perhaps I should not include them? This is new territory for me, so I thought I'd check first.
A review: See Below - Rpmlint output. OK - Package name. OK - Spec file name matches. OK - Package guidelines. OK - Licsense. (BSD) OK - License field matches in spec. OK - License included in files OK - Spec in american english OK - Spec legible See below- Md5sum of source from upstream OK - Compiles and builds on one arch at least. See below - All required buildrequires included? OK - Ldconfig in post/postun if including libs. OK - Owns all directories it creates. OK - No duplicate files in %files listing. OK - Permissions on files correct. OK - Clean section correct. OK - Macros consistant. OK - Code not content. OK - Header files/libs in a devel package. OK - .so files in devel package. OK - Devel package requires base package. OK - No .la files. OK - .desktop file if a GUI app OK - Doesn't own any files/dirs that are already owned by others. Items needing attention: 1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match: 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz 8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel? You might consider using a dist tag... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. 3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with --disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging. 4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE against rpmlint to allow this case? 5. I see in the build logs: xmlto man gps.xml make[1]: xmlto: Command not found make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored) Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed? 6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir, should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in the base build group, so it works) 7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap' from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well.
(In reply to comment #1) > Items needing attention: > > 1. md5sum's of the upstream source don't seem to match: > > 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz > 8212ac4b10deb3f69d84b80a8a0d3cfd gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 This is weird. I get that they do: 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz 4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the first time around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match). Weird. > 2. Are you only planning for this to be in devel? > You might consider using a dist tag... > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag I know, and included the dist tag shortly after I submitted this bug report (but didn't yet post the new srpm as it was the only change). I use it in the new srpm as indicated below. > For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. Right. Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is needed). > 3. Consider supressing /usr/lib/libgps.a file with > --disable-static or removing the .a file before packaging. Done. > 4. The 'E: gpsd-clients only-non-binary-in-usr-lib' rpmlint > can probibly be ignored. It's good to ship app-defaults files > so people can customize as they like. perhaps file an RFE > against rpmlint to allow this case? Ok, ignoring error. > 5. I see in the build logs: > xmlto man gps.xml > make[1]: xmlto: Command not found > make[1]: [gps.1] Error 127 (ignored) > > Perhaps a 'BuildRequires: xmlto' is needed? Oops. My bad. Fixed. > 6. You use a python call to determine the python site dir, > should you also have a 'BuildRequires: python'? It's not in the > exceptions list of packages not to list. (Althought it's in > the base build group, so it works) Also fixed. > 7. There is also a 'W: gpsd non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hotplug/usb/gpsd.usermap' > from rpmlint. I think thats safe to ignore as well. Also ignoring. New spec and srpm: http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm
>This is weird. I get that they do: > >4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz >4bb9b0c1642d36265c807a04da3d6f60 gpsd-2.32.tar.gz.1 > >Ohhh, maybe I accidentally used the source from the upstream srpm the firsttime >around (and perhaps that source tarball doesn't match). Weird. Ok, something must have been odd with my initial download. I now get that same md5sum. Downloaded it several places and it all matched. Not sure if there was a hiccup on berlios, somewhere in between or what, but it looks ok now. >> For fc4 you would also have to change the X BuildRequires. > >Right. Will do if I build for fc4 (as right now I'm not even sure what is >needed). ok. Probibly will need xorg-x11-devel there. >New spec and srpm: >http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd.spec >http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-1.src.rpm You mean http://matt.truch.net/fedora/gpsd-2.32-3.src.rpm, right? In any case that seems to be the right one. ;) I can't seem to get this to build under mock, but it looks like a dbus-devel and/or problem with my test machine. It builds fine otherwise. All the blockers are fixed, so this package is APPROVED.
FYI, the mock build problems I was seeing were due to a missing BuildRequires: dbus-glib which is needed for the link in dbus-devel to be working and pointing to the right library.
Built and should be available shortly. Thanks again for the review.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gpsd New Branches: epel7 Owners: fcami Note: Miroslav Lichvar stated by email I could maintain the EPEL7 branch.
Git done (by process-git-requests).