Nobody seems to be assigned to this. Is there something I need to do find a reviewer? This is my first new package and I am not familiar with the process steps or timing of when things happen. Thanks for the help.

> BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
Not used in Fedora.
> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
Don't.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

> BuildRequires: gcc, gcc-c++, cmake >= 2.4.7, pkgconfig, gtk2-devel
> BuildRequires: libzip, libzip-devel, pandoc, desktop-file-utils
> BuildRequires: gettext, gettext-devel, glibc-devel
It's a matter of style, and hence - subjective - but I'd reformat this
to put each dependency on a separate line.

Similarly with the %install section - you can put empty lines
between the commands, it'll work fine.

> BuildRequires: libzip, libzip-devel
> BuildRequires: gettext, gettext-devel
Requiring the base packages is not needed; -devel packages are required
to pull in the base package as a direct dependency.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package

> cmake -D CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=%{_prefix} -D CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug  .
> %make_build
Can you try doing "%cmake" and then "%cmake_build"?
> make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install
Same here - try using "%cmake_install".
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/

> mv %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/xtrkcad.png %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/icons
I believe this should go into either "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps",
or into "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/SIZE/apps/".
The latter also mandates adding "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme".

Artur,
Thanks for reviewing this package. I have addressed your comments and uploaded the modified xtrkcad.spec and src rpm files. Hopefully this is closer to what you are thinking. 

I have a problem with %cmake, %cmake_build. %cmake produces some shared libraries libxtrkcad-cornu.so, etc instead of the expected static libs. Is there an option that can change this.

Would you mind assigning yourself to the bug?

Hi Artur,
I figured out how to get past the shared library problem. I added another patch, xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-p2.patch, and updated the spec and srpm.
Phil

Hi Artur,
When you get a chance could you review my latest changes?
Thanks!
Phil

> Patch0: xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-p0.patch
> Patch1: xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-p1.patch
> Patch2: xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-p2.patch
These should be either given some more descriptive names,
or some comments explaining why they're needed.

> Patch1: xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-p1.patch
Don't. The license text should be included verbatim.
Please submit this patch upstream and drop it from the SRPM.

> mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/pixmaps
> mv %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/xtrkcad.png \
> %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/pixmaps/xtrkcad.png
1. Consider using tabs or spaces to make follow-up lines more prominent when splitting
   commands across multiple lines.
2. This leaves behind the empty "%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/" directory.
   Remove it.

The package allows building documentation using doxygen - consider doing this
and putting documentation in a sub-package.

If you add "BuildRequires: doxygen" and change "%cmake" to
"%cmake -DXTRKCAD_USE_DOXYGEN", you will end up with the documentation
installed in "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/html".

Hi Artur,
I updated the files based on your comments:
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad.spec
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc36.src.rpm
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-xtrkcad.desktop.patch
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-license.patch

The license files have been updated upstream and are now current. This was done when I made the original patch.I am an upstream developer and I made the changes. They are in the current development (and next release) branch V5.3.0. 

When I remove the patch
fedpkg --release rawhide lint
errors on the old address in the GPL license file. 
Does this matter in getting the package into fedora? If not, I will delete the patch.

I prefer to not create a separate doc package as it is more work keeping two packages in sync and moved through the process. 

Thanks for taking the time to review this.
Phil

> Does this matter in getting the package into fedora? If not, I will delete the patch.
It matters in the "should be reported upstream" sense, but it's not a blocker.

> I prefer to not create a separate doc package as it is more work keeping two packages in sync and moved through the process. 
I meant creating a sub-package. You can read more here:
- https://blog.svgames.pl/article/building-multiple-packages-with-rpm
- https://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-subpack.html
- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch10s04.html

tl;dr version is:
> %package docs
> Summary: Documentation for %{name}
> BuildArch: noarch
> 
> %description docs
> This package contains user documentation for XTrkCad,
> in HTML format.
Later down the line, you just add
> %files docs
And list the files that should go in the "docs" subpackage.

Updated source rpm and spec.file

Deleted license patch.

Added docs sub-package. (Thanks for the tip)

Please take a look.
Phil

> # Following gets removed on next GA release
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/licenses/%{name}
> mv %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/%{name}/COPYING %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/licenses/%{name}/COPYING
This is not needed. The %license macro works as follows:
- if the path is absolute, it is treated as pointing to a file in the buildroot
- if the path is relative, it is treated as pointing to a file in the build directory,
  which is then copied where needed
In other words, you do not need to copy the file to "%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/licenses/%{name}" yourself.
The "%license app/COPYING" line will take care of that for you.

> %package docs
Sorry, it just occurred to me that the Packaging Guidelines say
this should be "doc", not "docs". (i.e. singular, without the "s")
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_separate_documentation_packages

> %files
> ...
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/applications
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/logo.bmp
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/xdg-open
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/xtrkcad-setup
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/xtrkcad.tip
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/xtrkcad.upd
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/xtrkcad.xtq
> 
> %files docs
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/demos
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/examples
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/html
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/params
This makes the %{_datadir}/%{name} directory not belong to any package.
There are two ways you can fix this:
1. Add "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}" to the main package. This makes the package
   own the directory, but not the files within.
2. Add "%{_datadir}/%{name}" to the main package to make it own the directory
   and the files within, and then use "%exclude %{_datadir}/%{name}/demos"
   to specify exceptions.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/

Also - is the "params" directory not needed by the application?
The program *must* be able to run properly without the -doc package installed.

I made your suggested changes and updated the spec and src.rpm

Please take a look
Phil

Are any further changes needed?
Hope to hear soon.
Phil

Hello, Phil. Sorry for making you wait so long.

So, first of all, there are a couple of bundled libraries in the upstream source.
You adjust the License field to encompass these libraries as well.

1. cJSON: MIT license
   - app/bin/cJSON.h
   - app/bin/cJSON.c
   This is packaged for Fedora under the name "cjson".
   You should either:
   a) BuildRequire cjson-devel and swap the bundled version
      for the distro version.
   b) Add "Provides: bundled(cjson) = 1.7.8" to the spec.

2. dirent: MIT license
   - app/bin/include/dirent.h
   This file seems to be a compatibility header for MS Windows,
   and likely can be safely patched out from the Linux package.

3. xdg-open: MIT license
   - app/lib/xdg-open
   Can likely be replaced with a symlink to /usr/bin/xdg-open,
   as provided by the "xdg-utils" package.

There is also a bundled copy of halibut, the text formatting system.
(Also MIT-licensed, found in app/tools/halibut.)
It is not installed as part of the final package, but it is
compiled during the build process and used to process some files.
Since halibut is packaged in Fedora ("halibut" package),
it would be useful to look into the possibility
of using the distro-provided program, instead of
having xtrkcad build its own bundled copy.

Next thing, the package provides a MIME info file under
/usr/share/xtrkcad/applications/xtrkcad.xml.
This should be moved to /usr/share/mime/packages/.

The package also installs a "xtrkcad-setup" file in
/usr/share/xtrkcad; looking at the script, it seems to be
an installer for a local user. This can be removed.

http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad.spec
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad-5.2.2GA-xtrkcad.desktop.patch
http://pecameron.fedorapeople.org/xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm

This packages the upstream release tarball which includes dirent.h, cJSON.c etc.

xtrkcad executable no longer includes the MIT licensed pieces that you mentioned. The process of building it does use MIT licensed components. I included the MIT license in the spec file.

I went through your notes and made some updates:

1) This version now uses the fedora cJSON package.

2) app/bin/include/dirent.h is only built for the Windows version, linux builds include /usr/include/dirent.h

3) xdg-open is not longer in the rpm. xtrkcad uses the fedora xdg-utils package.

4) halibut - the fedora package reports markup errors and does not properly build the documentation. For now the included halibut is used.

5) xtrkcad.xml has been moved to the proper location.

6) xtrkcad-setup is no longer in the rpm.

I really appreciate the time you take reviewing this. Please take another look.
Phil

I discussed comment #13 with teh developers.

Xtrkcad is a multi-platform CAD package for designing model railroads that has been in development from before 2003. It is actively developed on Windows, iOS, ubuntu and fedora. The code base reflects needs of all the platforms. When a general release is done packages re created for Windows, iOS, ubuntu and an rpm. The packages are available to download from sourceforge and so far it has been downloaded over 13,700 times.

Early on the developers chose halibut for the documentation but found it lacked a few key features. The halibut development team did not want to add the features for a variety of reasons and halibut was forked and modified. So we will never be able to use the fedora halibut.

> License: GPLv2+ MIT
So... On one hand, the value here should be "GPLv2+ and MIT".
It's important to use "and" or "or" here.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios

...on the other hand, the license field applies only to the resulting RPM package.
As such, the fact that halibut is MIT-licensed is irrelevant, as it is only used
for processing some files during the build process, and neither the halibut
executable, nor any halibut code is shipped in the resulting package.
With cJSON unbundled (hint: you can try removing the cjson files during %prep
to be 100% sure the system library is used), I think the resulting package is now GPLv2.

> Requires: cjson
This is not required. rpmbuild picks up the list of required .so files
from the xtrkcad executable and builds the Requires list based on that.

Hi Artur,
I made the changes you suggested and uploaded teh xtrkcad.spec and source rpm files.
Please take a look.
Thanks,
Phil

Hi Artur,
Any chance you can take a look at this? It been a while...
phil

Hello, Phil. Sorry to make you wait so long.
There are a couple of minor issues with the package, but overall it looks good.

1) app/tools/halibut/LICENCE should not be installed
The License: field applies only to the resulting binary RPM.
The bundled halibut is used only during the build process,
but no halibut code is included in the xtrkcad executable.
Hence, the halibut license file doesn't need to be installed.

2) Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6430720 bytes in /usr/share
Consider moving the contents of /usr/share/xtrkcad to
a subpackage, like xtrkcad-data. The main package should
then have a Requires: on it.

3) Missing BuildRequires on "cmake(cmocka)"
The program's test suite is based on cmocka, which is not BuildRequired.
Building tests also needs to be enabled by using "-DXTRKCAD_TESTING=ON".
Because of this, tests aren't built and hence nothing is really
tested during %check. I've tried building the test suite and got
linking errors when doing so, so it's possible that CMakeLists
need to be patched in order to make it all work. (Alternatively,
can just omit the tests and remove the check section entirely.
If you do so, consider adding a short comment saying
that the test suite is broken.)


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     Note: file app/tools/halibut/LICENCE is installed, but halibut
     is used only during the build process and no halibut code is included
     in the resulting binary package.
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6430720 bytes in /usr/share
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     %check is present, but no tests are being found. The test suite
     uses cmocka, which is not listed in BuildRequires.

===== 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.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     Note: bundled code is present in the source tarball, but patched out
     and not used during build.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[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.
     Note: successful scratch build in koji for Rawhide can be found at:
     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84171921
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     %check is present, but no tests are being found. The test suite
     uses cmocka, which is not listed in BuildRequires.
[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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6430720 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          xtrkcad-doc-5.2.2-1.fc37.noarch.rpm
          xtrkcad-debuginfo-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          xtrkcad-debugsource-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm
          xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
xtrkcad.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchwork -> bench work, bench-work, workbench
xtrkcad.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtrkcad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtrkcad/COPYING
xtrkcad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/xtrkcad/COPYING
xtrkcad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xtrkcad
xtrkcad-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
xtrkcad-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/xtrkcad/html/GNUGPLicense.html
xtrkcad.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchwork -> bench work, bench-work, workbench
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xtrkcad-debuginfo-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://sourceforge.net/projects/xtrkcad-fork/files/XTrackCad/Version 5.2.2/xtrkcad-source-5.2.2GA.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a5b2caa29b34504338a7f1fd2412e8590b8add9be410611d09693a721b798524
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5b2caa29b34504338a7f1fd2412e8590b8add9be410611d09693a721b798524


Requires
--------
xtrkcad (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
    libcjson.so.1()(64bit)
    libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libzip.so.5()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    xdg-utils

xtrkcad-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xtrkcad-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xtrkcad-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
xtrkcad:
    application()
    application(xtrkcad.desktop)
    xtrkcad
    xtrkcad(x86-64)

xtrkcad-doc:
    xtrkcad-doc

xtrkcad-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    xtrkcad-debuginfo
    xtrkcad-debuginfo(x86-64)

xtrkcad-debugsource:
    xtrkcad-debugsource
    xtrkcad-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2040728 --cache
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Hi Artur,
1) I removed the halibut LICENSE file from the install.
2) I think we discussed docs and multiple rpms a while ago. I built a xtrkcad-doc rpm (5+Mb) for the docs and put the parameter files (1Mb) in the main rpm. Do you think this should be done differently? What would you like changed?
3) The demos are manually run as the test cases. The change to allow them to run in batch is in the next release. I commented out the %check and added a comment.

I updated the spec file and srpm. Please take a look.

What is the next step for me in this process? Does the bug need to be closed to move forward?

Thanks again,
Phil

> I built a xtrkcad-doc rpm (5+Mb) for the docs and put the parameter files (1Mb) in the main rpm.
> Do you think this should be done differently?
I focused too much on the install size. The docs are 17MiB unpacked and the parameter files are 6MiB unpacked.
The parameter files could be moved to a third, separate sub-package. But since they seem to compress
nicely, and the main package is just 1.6MiB, I don't think that's necessary.

I think this is good to go now. PACKAGE APPROVED.

> What is the next step for me in this process?
Take a look at the linked guide - you've just completed step six.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_Existing_Contributors/

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xtrkcad