Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli-1.7-1.src.rpm Description: Finger Lakes Instrument library is used by applications to control FLI line of CCDs and Filter wheels
From IRC: 11:51 < killefiz> Kevin_Kofler: from the libfli-spec - what does %cmake -DLIB_POSTFIX=64 11:51 < killefiz> do? Will that hardcode lib64 as library path? 11:52 <@Kevin_Kofler> I guess so. Looks like this is broken indeed. 11:53 <@Kevin_Kofler> This needs to be conditional on %if "%{?_lib}" == "lib64" 11:54 <@Kevin_Kofler> But ideally the upstream CMake machinery should be fixed to use the standard LIB_SUFFIX which is already set by our %cmake macro instead of the nonstandard LIB_POSTFIX. 11:54 <@Kevin_Kofler> (upstream = libfli in this context)
My fault, I didn't check it in i386. I have patched the cmake file to use LIB_SUFFIX instead of LIB_POSTFIX Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli-1.7-2.src.rpm
rpmlint output: libfli.src: E: description-line-too-long Finger Lakes Instrument library is used by applications to control FLI line of CCDs and Filter wheels - wrap long line libfli-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - ok, no devel documentation
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: f10 / x86_64 [!] Rpmlint output: not clean, see previous comment [-] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct [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 type: BSD - LICENSE.BSD is 2 clause new BSD license with no advertising but sources are under 3 clause BSD license. I think it's OK for review and it's not blocker but ask upstream to match it. [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - md5 sums do not match! [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [!] Package consistently uses macros. - Please do not use %{__ macros and use only <command>, I talked to RPM developer and FESCo member and they do not like it. But this is not a blocker, feel free to select one consistent style. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in koji. Tested on: koji dist-f11 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1103679 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: koji dist-f11 [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === SUMMARY === - Clean rpmlint output - Ask upstream about licenses - Correct source tarball - Check macros
This new rpm has all the problems fixed. I have opened a bug upstream with the mismatched licenses. Spec URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli.spec SRPM URL: http://sergiopr.fedorapeople.org/libfli-1.7-3.src.rpm
rpmlint output clean - OK licenses reported upstream - OK md5sum match - OK macros - OK for me it's OK and as it's blocker for kde42 release I think it's not a problem to approve it now, we can deal with license issue later APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libfli Short Description: Library for FLI CCD Camera & Filter Wheels Owners: sergiopr Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Can you please add a disttag (i.e. %{?dist})? As we'll also need this pushed out to F9 and F10, it will make managing the Release tag much easier.
Ops, good point, I missed it.
I have added the tag and build the package in F-10 and F-9. I will update libindi ASAP
Ok, thanks.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libfli New Branches: epel7 Owners: lupinix InitialCC: We need this package for libindi in EPEL7.
Comments from the primary maintainers?
Yes, please, go ahead, I'm not interested in this right now
Git done (by process-git-requests).