SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/restool.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/restool-2.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: restool is a user space application providing the ability to dynamically create and manage DPAA2 containers and objects from Linux. restool interacts with the DPAA2 Management Complex (MC). It uses an ioctl to send MC commands, and thus requires a Linux kernel driver providing the needed ioctl support. koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74074006 FAS: pbrobinson
Hi @pbrobinson I've had this published on COPR for a while now. Happy to compare notes. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/boeroboy/honeycomb/
What info do you need? Why are you needinfo for a statement?
Nothing needed. Just trying to help. My builds came from the WindRiver-Labs repo though. 20.04 is the NXP SDK version apparently. It sounds like a different codebase. If you are experimenting with a COPR I'm happy to test it out, or are you planning to put this straight in the Fedora repos soon? Cheers
Mine came from the supported NXP repo for the SoC revisions we support in Fedora. No copr.
I would make few changes to the spec - drop the sed and set the prefix variable on a make commandline instead - use modern variable for the compiler/linker flags as shown bellow Full review will follow soon. @@ -28,14 +28,13 @@ %prep %autosetup -p1 -sed -i 's#/usr/local#/usr#g' Makefile %build # the maybe-uninitialized has been reported to upstream -%{make_build} EXTRA_CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized" LDFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" +%{make_build} EXTRA_CFLAGS="%{build_cflags} -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized" LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" %install -%{make_install} +%{make_install} prefix=%{_usr} %files %license COPYING
All makes sense to me
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: a32b2fc876bc640b349a94e09c8b9fffefb27528 restool-2.3.0.tar.xz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (BSD, GPLv2+). OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK* compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/aarch64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - restool is dual licensed if I read it right, it should be "BSD or GPLv2+" - better to use %build_cflags/%build_ldflags as discussed earlier - rpmlint only complains about missing man pages for the ls-* tools - changelog refers to version 2.3, but the version tag is 2.3.0
Updated spec that should have all the changes: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/restool.spec
thanks, the package is APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/restool