Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 240793
Review Request: hdhomerun - tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun
Last modified: 2013-06-03 06:10:44 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/libhdhomerun/libhdhomerun.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/libhdhomerun/libhdhomerun-0.0-0.1.20070512.fc7.src.rpm Description: libhdhomerun contains development headers for applications wishing to interface with the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun, as well as an HDHomeRun configuration/firmware update utility. (no firmware included, just the utility to push it).
*** Bug 243704 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
While the upstream tarball is called "libhdhomerun" there isn't really a library produced. That's why I chose to call the package that I put together "hdhomerun". Also, I'm not sure how useful it is at this point to install the header files into a -devel subpackage because there's no library to link against.
Okay, try these on for size: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/hdhomerun/hdhomerun-0.0-0.1.20070616.fc7.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/hdhomerun/hdhomerun.spec ----8<---- * Mon Jun 18 2007 Jarod Wilson <jwilson@redhat.com> 0.0-0.1.20070616 - Update to 20070616 release - Don't install any of the header files and drop lib from the package name, since this really isn't a library
1 - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK (rpmlint is silent) 2 - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK 3 - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK 4 - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK - minor suggestion, use sed to manipulate the Makefile and drop the BR on perl: --- hdhomerun.spec 2007-06-18 08:40:19.000000000 -0500 +++ hdhomerun.spec.new 2007-06-18 07:14:12.000000000 -0500 @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ URL: http://www.silicondust.com/ Source0: http://download.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/libhdhomerun_%{releasedate}.tgz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -BuildRequires: perl %description libhdhomerun contains the configuration and firmware upgrade @@ -20,7 +19,7 @@ # Fix up linefeeds, drop execute bit and don't strip binaries %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' * %{__chmod} -x * -%{__perl} -pi -e 's/strip.*//g' Makefile +%{__sed} -i -e '/strip/d' -e 's/C\(PP\)\?FLAGS .=/C\1FLAGS ?=/' Makefile Another minor point (not a blocker), the source files are encoded with ISO-8859-1, converting them to UTF-8 might be helpful. Not a big deal because AFAIK it only affects the © symbol in the header: for f in *; do /usr/bin/iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 --output $f.new $f && mv $f.new $f done %build export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" 5 - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK (LGPL) 6 - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK 7 - MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK 8 - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK 9 - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). OK 10 - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. OK 11 - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK (F-7/i386) 12 - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues... OK (Unable to test PPC) 13 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK 14 - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK (no locale-specific files) 15 - MUST: If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths, that package must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is... OK (no shared libs) 16 - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK (not relocatable) 17 - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. OK 18 - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK 19 - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK 20 - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK 21 - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK 22 - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK 23 - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) OK 24 - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK 25 - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. OK 26 - MUST: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package. OK 27 - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK 28 - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK 29 - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. OK 30 - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK 31 - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK 32 - MUST: Release tag must contain %{?dist}. OK 33 - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK 34 - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK 35 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK (F-7/i386) 36 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Untested 37 - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. 38 - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. REMINDER: Check for condrestart if a service is restarted by scriptlets. REMINDER: Verify that non-chkconfig/ldconfig commands have "|| :". OK 39 - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK APPROVED
D'oh, accidentally been sitting on this for nearly a month... I'll get it imported today...
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: hdhomerun Short Description: tools for the Silicon Dust HDHomeRun Owners: jwilson@redhat.com, jeff@ocjtech.us Branches: F-7, FC-6 InitialCC:
Nb: version slated for import does have the perl->sed and iconv changes.
cvs done.
Please close this bug once the packages have been imported and built.
bodhi is gonna come through and update this a bit later, but what the hey...
hdhomerun-0.0-0.2.20070616.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: hdhomerun New Branches: el6 Owners: pwouters
Git done (by process-git-requests).