Spec URL: http://bakeyournoodle.com/~tony/fedora/libbsr/libbsr.spec SRPM URL: http://bakeyournoodle.com/~tony/fedora/libbsr/libbsr-0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This is a library to expose the functionality of the Barrier Synchronization Register (BSR) on IBM POWER Systems in Linux. This facility helps speed up synchronization across large SMP systems Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1118653 RPMlint: [tony@mango fedora]$ rpmlint -iv RPMS/*/libbsr* SRPMS/libbsr* libbsr.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-debuginfo.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-devel.ppc64: I: checking libbsr.src: I: checking 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Please do not hardcode a specific sourceforge mirror in the Source0 tag. the recommended address is downloads.sourceforge.net. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment any patch should be submitted upstream for evaluation/inclusion (+ a comment with the URL of the bug report or whatever applies).
(In reply to comment #1) > Please do not hardcode a specific sourceforge mirror in the Source0 tag. the > recommended address is downloads.sourceforge.net. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net Ahh thank you. I have corrected the SPEC file at the same URL. > According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > any patch should be submitted upstream for evaluation/inclusion (+ a comment > with the URL of the bug report or whatever applies). I'd updated the SPEC fil to indicate that I've asked for upstream to include the patch in the next release for this. Next I'll try and decode sourceforge to file a real bug.
Another small fix is needed: "warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/libbsr-0.1/examples"
(In reply to comment #3) > Another small fix is needed: > "warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/libbsr-0.1/examples" Hmm okay. I can see how to fix that. I clearly need to read the rpmbuild output more clearly.
(In reply to comment #4) > Hmm okay. I can see how to fix that. I clearly need to read the rpmbuild > output more clearly. Fixed, new scratch build here: https://koji.fedoraproject.or/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1120493 new SRPM and SPEC file at: http://bakeyournoodle.com/~tony/fedora/libbsr/ rpmlint is still clear: [tony@mango fedora]$ rpmlint -vi SRPMS/libbsr*3.fc10.src.rpm RPMS/ppc64/libbsr*3.fc10.ppc64.rpm SPECS/libbsr.spec libbsr.src: I: checking libbsr.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-debuginfo.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-devel.ppc64: I: checking 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Upstream have released v0.2 including the patch from the RPM. I've respun with 0.2 New scratch build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1120621 new SRPM and SPEC file at: http://bakeyournoodle.com/~tony/fedora/libbsr/ rpmlint is still clear: [tony@mango fedora]$ rpmlint -vi SRPMS/libbsr*0.2*rpm RPMS/ppc64/libbsr*0.2*rpm SPECS/libbsr.spec libbsr.src: I: checking libbsr.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-debuginfo.ppc64: I: checking libbsr-devel.ppc64: I: checking 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
The new guideline about comments on patches is a "SHOULD" item and not a MUST. Even the SourceForge URLs are not mandatory. No reason to insist on getting them fixed prior to approval. It's not as if the url pointed to the interactive web page. Direct links to a mirror are just fine, since the various wget/curl compatible mirror-selection or round-robin dns urls don't always work for everyone either (and a reviewer ought to visit the upstream site anyway). Additionally, some SF.net projects publish their tarballs with different urls. The guidelines don't cover all cases, as they are more of a hint/recommendation than a strict rule. The redundant %dir didn't cause any files to be mispackaged and didn't cause a build failure either. [...] The packaging is fine: APPROVED [...] Hints and minor issues that can be changed in pkg cvs: * For %setup the "-n %name-%version" parameter is the default. * You mix %_libdir and %_prefix/%_lib in %install section. * Instead of | %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ | %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LGPL-2.1 | %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README you could also use: | %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ | %exclude %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/examples/ Doesn't change much for this package, but could be helpful with other packages where more than two doc files shall be included.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles: A Fedora package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
And that really refers only to the rpmbuild "warning: File listed twice ..."? I have doubts about that (and I've done packaging guidelines stuff long enough). Let me explain: 1.) That guideline would only be somewhat important for actual files (and not directories). The rationale is simple: By mistake one can include a file more than once in the same %files section (which does not do any harm!) and not notice this when moving the file to the %files section of another subpackage. Then you end up with the same file in multiple packages. That's bad, as it can cause side-effects. 2.) That guideline would be more important if it referred to files listed in multiple subpackages. Because that is something rpmbuild does NOT detect. So, once again, consider it a hint/documentation on what packagers might want to know about when creating packages. Still no reason to require a package submitter to spend extra time on building fresh rpms just for this. Here it was a simple redundant %dir entry. It can be pointed out and fixed in cvs. It's not a blocker-criterion.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libbsr Short Description: Barrier Synchronization Register access library Owners: tbreeds Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
Michael, since you did the review, could you please assign this bug to yourself ?
cvs done.
Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128789 has been accepted into rawhide: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01149.html
libbsr-0.2-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libbsr-0.2-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.