Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libisds.spec SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libisds-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm Description: This is a library for accessing ISDS (Informační systém datových schránek / Data Box Information System) SOAP services as defined in Czech ISDS Act (300/2008 Coll.) and related documents.
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review Sources used when checking: [Reset@localhost koji]$ md5sum libisds.spec 32ac2450de961b8f7dbd5014716f362c libisds.spec [Reset@localhost koji]$ md5sum libisds-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm 4f5082969d4880f4622c4eff93d55c6a libisds-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm $rpmlint -v libisds-* libisds-debuginfo.i686: I: checking libisds-devel.i686: I: checking libisds-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libisds.i686: I: checking libisds.src: I: checking 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Doc files available in main package, so warning could be ignored. + MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . + MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines + MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license + 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. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + 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 From srpm: $ md5sum libisds-0.1.tar.bz2 d0b0f647e3d603ca810b639ea703ed82 libisds-0.1.tar.bz2 From upstream: $ md5sum libisds-0.1.tar.bz2 d0b0f647e3d603ca810b639ea703ed82 libisds-0.1.tar.bz2 = MATCHES + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - tested on i686, no problems 0 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 + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro 0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries + 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 + MUST: 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 + MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content 0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' + 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 + MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 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 + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 All MUST things passed, however I have two comments which should be addressed/NACKed before I'll set review+ : 1) devel package has %{_includedir}/* although it ships just %{_includedir}/isds.h . Consider explicitely stating that file to ensure that possible future changes will be known. It's more clean to explicitely list shipped files. Not mandatory and easier to maintain with *, though. 2) There is doc subdirectory in the tarball which contains specifications. It would be good to include them in %doc as well - they are not so big - 40kbytes together - as README file explicitely mentions you should look into doc dir for specifications. It also mentions test (with tests) and client(with examples), those are probably not necessary to ship.
SRPMS: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libisds-0.1-2.el6.src.rpm Spec: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/libisds.spec Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1977607
Thanks for addressing those minor issues. md5sum libisds* 24b8181465277c448f590577a097f417 libisds.spec 4e2a364d889895803c1876cb03fe0048 libisds-0.1-2.el6.src.rpm Used newer rpmlint this time: $ rpmlint -v libisds-* libisds-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking libisds-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://xpisar.wz.cz/libisds/ (timeout 10 seconds) libisds-devel.x86_64: I: checking libisds-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://xpisar.wz.cz/libisds/ (timeout 10 seconds) libisds.src: I: checking libisds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Informační libisds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systém -> system, systole, systolic libisds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datových -> datebook, dative, Datamation libisds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schránek -> Schroeder, Schrodinger, Schrieffer libisds.src: I: checking-url http://xpisar.wz.cz/libisds/ (timeout 10 seconds) libisds.src: I: checking-url http://xpisar.wz.cz/libisds/dist/libisds-0.1.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) libisds.x86_64: I: checking libisds.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Informační libisds.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systém -> system, systole, systolic libisds.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datových -> datebook, dative, Datamation libisds.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schránek -> Schroeder, Schrodinger, Schrieffer libisds.x86_64: I: checking-url http://xpisar.wz.cz/libisds/ (timeout 10 seconds) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Those issues could be ignored as this is the oficial name of the project in czech (english translation available in spec as well) Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libisds Short Description: Library for accessing the Czech Data Boxes Owners: mcepl Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
libisds-0.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libisds-0.1-2.fc11
Build in Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=155918
libisds-0.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libisds New Branches: epel7 Owners: ppisar InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).