Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/indi/indi-1.9.8-1.fc37.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/indi/indi.spec Description: INDI is a standard for astronomical instrumentation control. INDI Library is an Open Source POSIX implementation of the Instrument-Neutral-Device-Interface protocol.
INDI is already packaged as "libindi" https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libindi
Oh, fantastic, thank you! I can't believe I missed it. :)
formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 9fecacb362cc501faf87b89167fd8e859fd058f4 indi-1.9.8.tar.gz 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. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. Ok compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/ppc64le). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. OK* %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are correctly 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 headers in devel subpackage OK pkgconfig file in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - Source0 could be simplified to %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - you can use %{_udevrulesdir} instead of /lib/udev/rules.d - I believe the sources are mix of GPL/LGPL and per the updated guidelines all should be listed in the License tag (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_conjunctive_and_licensing) - rpmlint complains about missing man pages (can be ignored) and some code issues (worth reporting upstream I think) indi.ppc64le: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi* indi.ppc64le: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/libindidriver.so.1.9.8 indi.ppc64le: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/indi_* - there is a call with ctest, but it says "No tests were found!!!"
Oh, no :-) I will take something else then :-)