Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10025740-gpib/ SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10025740-gpib/ Description: User libraries, language bindings and documentation for the GPIB driver. As of kernel 6.19, the linux kernel will include GPIB (General Purpose Interface Bus) drivers. This package includes the user portion of the linux gpib project to enable programs to access devices on the GPIB and to configure GPIB controllers. The GPIB is used to control electronic and scientific instruments and was originally created by Hewlett Packard as the HPIB in the early 1970's. The standard was formulated as IEEE 488. Another package, gpib-firmware is required for some hardware that requires the loading of firmware. (some Agilent and National Instruments USB/GPIB controllers) (n.b. For several years I have provided RPM packages on COPR for the GPIB driver (using dkms) and the user libraries, language bindings and documentation) References: Linux GPIB project - https://linux-gpib.sourceforge.io/ Fedora Account System Username: vk2bea
These are first packages I have proposed for inclusion in Fedora, so I am looking for a sponsor (per the instructions) (the associated request for the inclusion of gpib-firmware is here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2430592)
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10025740-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10025740-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10032462 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10032462-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Updated spec file: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-105.fc43.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-105.fc43.src.rpm
fedora-review-service-build Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10100950-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-105.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2133367 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10032462 to 10224712
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224712 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224712-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224748 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224748-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224757 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224757-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224765 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224765-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10224772 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10224772-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages - Explicit dependency on perl-devel is not allowed unless building architecture-specific code which links to libperl.so Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/ - Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Read more: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10226169-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10226169-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-106.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2133418 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10224772 to 10226185
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10226185 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10226185-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10232498-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10232498-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-107.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2133727 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10226185 to 10232504
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10232504 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10232504-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10268058-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10268058-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-109.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2135095 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10232504 to 10268069
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10268069 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10268069-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10280463-gpib/gpib.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10280463-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-109.fc43.src.rpm
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10280463-gpib/gpib.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-43-x86_64/10280463-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-109.fc43.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-44-x86_64/10402818-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-44-x86_64/10402818-gpib/gpib-4.3.7-111.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2138555 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10268069 to 10405281
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405281 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405281-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
I can take this for now, but co-reviewers are welcome since I did not do a review of something this low-level
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #28) > I can take this for now, but co-reviewers are welcome since I did not do a > review of something this low-level Thanks!
- `%bcond_*` are quite confusing indeed. If you do not port it to epel8 (don't know why you would at this time), please use `%bcond (option) (default_value)` instead - I try to stay away from sourceforge, but can't you use `Source0` pointing to `https://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-gpib/files/linux-gpib%20for%203.x.x%20and%202.6.x%20kernels/%{version}/linux-gpib-%{version}.tar.gz`? I took it from looking at what other spec files with sourceforge do [1] - Getting a clean git archive is of course also encouraged ever since the libxz saga. I just don't know if sourceforge can automatically provide one. `%forgemeta` at least is not aware of one, but if you could find one out, do let us know. - Note that the git archive contains the files of the `linux-gpib-kernel`, so you cannot use that as a source until the firmware parts are cleared - If you are using a git snapshot, please follow the snapshot naming guidelines - Please use `%autorelease`/`%autochangelog` [3] unless you have reasons not to. It helps other Fedora maintainers - `linux-gpib` and others are not a known package in Fedora, right? please remove the Obsoletes - Have you confirmed with upstream that the license is `GPL-2.0-or-later` or `GPL-2.0-only`? Afaik the distinction cannot be made from the license text alone since those are identical - What are the reasons for all of the `%bcond_*`. Usually these are used to break circular dependencies or if a feature often breaks - Please use `%autosetup` or at least `%autopatch` instead of manual `%patch` commands - Using `3` instead of `%{python3_pkgversion}` is sufficient and more readable. The latter is used for systems like centos where they can have a secondary python version. Unless it is requested to use `%{python3_pkgversion}`, please do not use it eagerly - Please build the manpages regardless of `%with_docs` - Conversely, consider if the non-man documentations are really necessary and worth the effort to maintain. Latex dependencies can be quite heavy - The `%bcond` do not gate the `BuildRequires` properly - For python packages you are supposed to use `%pyproject_buildrequires` instead of adding dependencies like `pyproject-rpm-macros` manually [4]. See other python projects for other macros that you should be using - Please use a macro for the SOVERSION instead of the `.so.*` glob - Are the `%ldconfig` parts necessary, i.e. do other libraries expect it to be loaded as if they were installed in `/usr/lib64`? - The `rm ..` in %postun is a big no-no. For that matter any scriplets should be avoided as much as possible - Please drop all of the comments separating the sections and instead use 2 newlines when you switch to a new section. Current form can get quite hard to read due to non-standard comments on section separators - Please confirm that all the `find %{buildroot} -delete` are necessary. If so please report it to upstream because that is a bug - The comment about `EPEL7` does not apply, epel7 is no longer buildable in either Fedora or copr - Please confirm the providence of all the Source/Patch files - The link to the tcl comment is dead. Please use the packaging guideline instructions instead [1]: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+file:%5C.spec%24+sourceforge&patternType=keyword&sm=0 [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots [3]: https://fedora-infra.github.io/rpmautospec-docs/index.html [4]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python [5]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Tcl
Corrected files... Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-44-x86_64/10413434-gpib/gpib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-44-x86_64/10413434-gpib/gpib-4.3.7%5E202604302b4cefb-1.fc44.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build] - `%bcond_*` are quite confusing indeed. If you do not port it to epel8 (don't know why you would at this time), please use `%bcond (option) (default_value)` instead ++ I removed these (evolutionary artifacts) - I try to stay away from sourceforge, but can't you use `Source0` pointing to `https://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-gpib/files/linux-gpib%20for%203.x.x%20and%202.6.x%20kernels/%{version}/linux-gpib-%{version}.tar.gz`? I took it from looking at what other spec files with sourceforge do [1] ++ I changed the Source0: to a URL but I'm not sure that helps - it seems that the file still needs to be downloaded into SOURCES - Getting a clean git archive is of course also encouraged ever since the libxz saga. I just don't know if sourceforge can automatically provide one. `%forgemeta` at least is not aware of one, but if you could find one out, do let us know. ++ I don't understand this - the Sourceforge archive IS git. ( https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-gpib/git/ci/master/tree/ ) - Note that the git archive contains the files of the `linux-gpib-kernel`, so you cannot use that as a source until the firmware parts are cleared ++ There is no firmware files in `linux-gpib-kernel`, these are the files that are now also part of the linux-kernel. Everything in the Sourceforge git archive (and consequently .zip file) is GPL - If you are using a git snapshot, please follow the snapshot naming guidelines ** Done - Please use `%autorelease`/`%autochangelog` [3] unless you have reasons not to. It helps other Fedora maintainers ** Done - `linux-gpib` and others are not a known package in Fedora, right? please remove the Obsoletes ** No, I was using that to obsolete the original COPR package. I've removed it. - Have you confirmed with upstream that the license is `GPL-2.0-or-later` or `GPL-2.0-only`? Afaik the distinction cannot be made from the license text alone since those are identical ** I updated to the GPL-3 license which is what the upstream package now is. - What are the reasons for all of the `%bcond_*`. Usually these are used to break circular dependencies or if a feature often breaks ** removed (see above) - Please use `%autosetup` or at least `%autopatch` instead of manual `%patch` commands ** done - Using `3` instead of `%{python3_pkgversion}` is sufficient and more readable. The latter is used for systems like centos where they can have a secondary python version. Unless it is requested to use `%{python3_pkgversion}`, please do not use it eagerly ** done - Please build the manpages regardless of `%with_docs` - Conversely, consider if the non-man documentations are really necessary and worth the effort to maintain. Latex dependencies can be quite heavy ** done (removed all the conditionals as they are not needed) - The `%bcond` do not gate the `BuildRequires` properly ** removed - For python packages you are supposed to use `%pyproject_buildrequires` instead of adding dependencies like `pyproject-rpm-macros` manually [4]. See other python projects for other macros that you should be using ** removed requirement for pyproject-rpm-macros - Please use a macro for the SOVERSION instead of the `.so.*` glob ** I define soversion and used %{soversion} but this is probably not what you want .. please check and let me know - Are the `%ldconfig` parts necessary, i.e. do other libraries expect it to be loaded as if they were installed in `/usr/lib64`? ** I removed the ldconfig_scriptlets as they are not used in Fedora (if I reads the documentation correctly). I think the ldconfig is still needed. - The `rm ..` in %postun is a big no-no. For that matter any scriplets should be avoided as much as possible ** removed ... (not needed) - Please drop all of the comments separating the sections and instead use 2 newlines when you switch to a new section. Current form can get quite hard to read due to non-standard comments on section separators ** What do you mean by 'Sections' - please elaborate - Please confirm that all the `find %{buildroot} -delete` are necessary. If so please report it to upstream because that is a bug ** removed (without apparent impact) - The comment about `EPEL7` does not apply, epel7 is no longer buildable in either Fedora or copr ++ removed - Please confirm the providence of all the Source/Patch files ++ yes all GPL files - The link to the tcl comment is dead. Please use the packaging guideline instructions instead ++ the packaging guideline recommended way to do this is supposed to be ... %{!?tcl_version: %global tcl_version %(echo 'puts $tcl_version' | tclsh)} %{!?tcl_sitearch: %global tcl_sitearch %{_libdir}/tcl%{tcl_version}} but this doesn't work on copr because tclsh is not available. I included the "BuildRequires: tcl-devel" (as described in the guideline) but it still fails to find tclsh.
Created attachment 2138944 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10405281 to 10413448
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10413448 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2430590-gpib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10413448-gpib/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Unfortunately, the Source URL I presumed to be a permanent link was not .. it rotted in a few hours. I had to revert back to using the filename - it doesn't appear that I can get a link from Sourceforge to a archive file. The reverted spec file is here... https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vk2bea/GPIB-User/fedora-44-x86_64/10415530-gpib/gpib.spec