Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02869597-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02869597-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.0-1.src.rpm Description: gdcalc is a financial, statistics, scientific and programmers calculator for gtk+-based under Unix and Linux. It has both Algebraic notation (ie. conventional, TI or Casio-like) and Reverse Polish Notation (HP-style). To customise for fonts & colours: mkdir ~/.config/%{name} cp /etc/%{name}/%{name}.css ~/.config/%{name}/ gdcalc is based on my venerable dcalc RPN calculator which I wrote a million years ago to learn C and curses - about 1983, I suppose. This package includes the original dcalc for curses (Unix console) If you want to know more about RPN calculators (and why they are more intuitive than algebraic calculators with their = sign) take a look at http://www.hpcalc.org Fedora Account System Username: wef
> %define ver 3.0 > %define rel 1 These aren't used anywhere apart from the Version and Release tags. You can just put those values straight into the tags. > Release: %{rel} Missing disttag, i.e. "value" -> "value%{?dist}". > Group: Applications/Productivity Not used in Fedora. > %clean Not used in Fedora. > %prep > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Guidelines say that the buildroot should not be removed in %install. This is done in %prep, so I guess *technically* it's okay, but still, there's no need to do this. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections > License: GPL The program seems to be GPL 2.0 only, which means a License tag of "GPLv2". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > %files > %defattr(-,root,root) Not needed. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions > %doc README COPYING doc/manual_en.html COPYING should be marked as %license.
Thanks for the review, Artur!! I've rebuilt according to your comments - I've used %autosetup in %prep instead of the 'rm -rf ...' Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02870576-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02870576-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
New version 3.1: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02900130-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02900130-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
New version 3.2: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02905457-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-34-x86_64/02905457-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.2-1.fc34.src.rpm
Hey Bob, are you still interested in getting this reviewed?
Sure, why not? I use it myself every day - it might be useful to others too.
> %define ver 3.2 > %define rel 1%{?dist} Any reason for introducing these macros instead of just putting the values inside Version: and Release: tags? > %define prefix /usr This doesn't seem to be used anywhere. > %description > > gdcalc is a financial, statistics, scientific and programmers > calculator for gtk+-based under Unix and Linux. Please remove the empty line at the start. > gdcalc is based on my venerable dcalc RPN calculator which I wrote a > million years ago to learn C and curses - about 1983, I suppose. This is nice for a README, but seems a bit off when used as part of the package description. > %files > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/* This necessitates "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".
Thanks for the tips, Artur. Here's a new version: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03643253-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03643253-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.2-2.fc35.src.rpm
The tarball in the SRPM differs from the one downloaded from GitLab. Can you download the tarball again, rebuild and reupload the SRPM?
OK - I cleaned out my ~/rpmbuild and started again with spectool -g ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/gdcalc.spec: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03655090-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03655090-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.2-3.fc35.src.rpm I downloaded that srpm and checked contents. Should be good now.
Package approved. There are some minor issues - please take a look at them. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: No man page for /usr/bin/gdcalc and /usr/bin/dcalc Upstream tarball contains man pages inside the doc/ directory, but they are not installed [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: gdcalc-3.2/configure.ac:11 AM_PROG_CC_STDC found in: gdcalc-3.2/configure.ac:16 ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: 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. Note: successful scratch build in koji for rawhide can be found at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84236868 [-]: %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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: gdcalc-3.2-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm gdcalc-debuginfo-3.2-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm gdcalc-debugsource-3.2-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm gdcalc-3.2-3.fc37.src.rpm gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customise -> customize, customhouse gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkdir -> dirk gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cp -> co, c, p gdcalc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US css -> cs, cuss, ass gdcalc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dcalc gdcalc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gdcalc gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ie -> IE, i, e gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customise -> customize, customhouse gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkdir -> dirk gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cp -> co, c, p gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US css -> cs, cuss, ass gdcalc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcalc -> ducal 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gdcalc-debuginfo-3.2-3.fc37.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/wef/gdcalc/-/archive/3.2/gdcalc-3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b1b1470733132111afcd6d6ceb36b4c0f3750f15f99a2f4021001cddeb7a69af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1b1470733132111afcd6d6ceb36b4c0f3750f15f99a2f4021001cddeb7a69af Requires -------- gdcalc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(gdcalc) hicolor-icon-theme libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libharfbuzz.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) units gdcalc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gdcalc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gdcalc: application() application(gdcalc.desktop) config(gdcalc) gdcalc gdcalc(x86-64) gdcalc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gdcalc-debuginfo gdcalc-debuginfo(x86-64) gdcalc-debugsource: gdcalc-debugsource gdcalc-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: gdcalc-3.2/configure.ac:11 AM_PROG_CC_STDC found in: gdcalc-3.2/configure.ac:16 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2009666 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, R, Haskell, fonts, Python, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Hi Artur, Thanks for the review! I will address those last couple of issues before final release.
man pages now included. New version of the source eliminates the obsolete macros. I will go ahead and request the repo. SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03739190-gdcalc/gdcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gdcalc/fedora-35-x86_64/03739190-gdcalc/gdcalc-3.3-1.fc35.src.rpm
Repo requested at: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43071
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdcalc
FEDORA-2022-f311679b2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f311679b2b
FEDORA-2022-f311679b2b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d
FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8
FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-bb693a3c2d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-605731cfd8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.