Description: PStreams class is like a C++ wrapper for the POSIX.2 functions popen(3) and pclose(3), using C++ iostreams instead of C's stdio library. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Needed for pdf2djvu package.
What's the significance of doxygen as a build requirement?
- removed, mistakenly wrote it. - Thanks. Updated: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
You should use either %{buildroot} or RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but not both in the same spec file. The install is missing a "-p" to preserve the timestamps.
Updated - Thanks http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-3.fc10.src.rpm
There are some issues left: - license is not included in %doc: COPYING.LIB You should also include in %doc: AUTHORS ChangeLog You need the BR doxygen, because you can create additional documentation with "make docs", this is also missing in the rpm. I would at least include the html documentation in %doc.
[OK] rpmlint output: silent [OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format [OK] license allowed:LGPLv3 [OK] license matches shortname in License: tag [NOT OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING.LIB [OK] package is code or permissive content: {N/A} patches sent to upstream and commented [OK] Source0 is a working URL {OK} Sourceforge URL is Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz <N/A> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name} [OK] Source0 matches Upstream: a12c2793937c2ea1bee04827d7b2ca63 pstreams-0.6.0.tar.gz [OK] Package builds on all platforms: [N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented: [TODO] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) (OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin [N/A] %find_lang used for locales [N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig [OK] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage [N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig (N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage [N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel [N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} The -devel package is the main apge here. [N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included [N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop [N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install [OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable) [OK] Owns all created directories [OK] no duplicates in %files [OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages [OK] included filenames are in UTF-8 [OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK] Consistent macro usage [OK] large documentation is -doc subpackage [OK] %doc does not affect runtime {OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) {OK} well known BuildRoot It's kind of this one: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) {OK} PreReq not used {N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured {N/A} Useful debuginfo generated {OK} no duplication of system libraries {N/A} no rpath {OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install {N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) {OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used {OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and %{buildroot} on %install and %clean) {OK} no Conflicts {OK} nothing installed in /srv {OK} Changelog in allowed format {OK} does not use Scriptlets <OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch <OK> Sane Provides: and Requires: {OK} Follows Naming Guidelines
Updated - Thanks http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-4.fc10.src.rpm
[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING.LIB [OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=920922 {NOT OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install If you use make install here, then the timestamp is not preserved. You can use this patch to preserve it: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/download.php?group_id=48695&atid=453894&file_id=300540&aid=2234202 If you add the patch, please mention in a comment in the spec file, that it is already submitted upstream and point to this location (the tracker for this patch): https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&atid=453894&aid=2234202&group_id=48695
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-5.fc10.src.rpm Updated
I clashed with your updated. Wait I will updated.
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/pstreams-devel.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc10.src.rpm Updated - Thanks for patch
{OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install Thank you for your fast responses, now everything is good, this package is now APPROVED.
Thanks New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pstreams-devel Short Description: POSIX Process Control in C++ Owners: rakesh Branches: F-8 F-9 F-10 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc8
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc9
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc10
According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be used in the base name of the package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release} .
(In reply to comment #18) > According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named > pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be > used in the base name of the package. The naming guidelines demand that the dash[1] is used as a separator in the base name of packages and there are only some exceptions that allow to use the underscore instead. Also the review guidelines contain a MUST item that demands header files being in a -devel package: - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Btw. debian also uses their devel naming scheme for pstreams: http://packages.debian.org/sid/libpstreams-dev > Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release} What is the technical advantage of this? I would expect header files to be in a -devel package. [1] some examples: bitmap-fonts bodhi-client bridge-utils
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > According to the Package Naming Conventions, shouldn't this package be named > > pstreams instead of pstreams-devel? The dash is a separator which shouldn't be > > used in the base name of the package. > > The naming guidelines demand that the dash[1] is used as a separator in the > base name of packages and there are only some exceptions that allow to use the > underscore instead. Also the review guidelines contain a MUST item that demands > header files being in a -devel package: Right. > > Of course, pstreams should then provide pstreams-devel = %{version}-%{release} > > What is the technical advantage of this? I would expect header files to be in a > -devel package. Well, the name confuses me a bit since I'd expect there to be a package named pstreams. Of course, one can add Provides: pstreams to pstreams-devel as well. > [1] some examples: > bitmap-fonts > bodhi-client > bridge-utils OK. Well, maybe it isn't as bad as I first thought: I find the following packages in F9 Everything SRPMS with names containing -devel: gnome-devel-docs sblim-cmpi-devel xorg-x11-proto-devel xorg-x11-xtrans-devel
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
pstreams-devel-0.6.0-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
I'm not sure the best way to announce this, but I've released a new version of pstreams, including the spec file and patch from the Fedora package
Because it is already available in fedora, two three ways in which you can help here are: a) In case you want latest release to fill a bug and provide a patch to spec (or additional patches if interested) b) In case you got a bug in already existing package fill a bug (and help in solving it if interested) c) In case you want to maintain package, get yourself sponsorship (details on fedora wiki) and request for co-maintainer-ship on pkgdb Thanks,