SPEC URL: http://people.collabora.co.uk/~rgs/fedora/valadoc.spec SRPM URL: http://people.collabora.co.uk/~rgs/fedora/valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Valadoc is a documentation generator for generating API documentation from Vala source code based on libvala. rpmlint output: [rgs@andromeda SPECS]$ rpmlint valadoc.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
One important note: we might have to choose a different name since this can easily be confused with the vala-doc package (Vala's language and compiler docs).
I will review this package
I see no problem with the name, if the upstream name is valadoc and it is not taken in Fedora, then it should be used. IMO
There is some issues [!] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for LIBGVC... yes checking for GLIB... no configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0 >= 2.12.0 gobject-2.0 >= 2.12.0) were not met: No package 'glib-2.0' found No package 'gobject-2.0' found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables GLIB_CFLAGS and GLIB_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IlkXRX (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IlkXRX (%build) RPM build errors: I can build the package in mock looks like some buildrequires are missing [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 97cfccf239cd296dcaf7c854788a31e6 MD5SUM upstream package : 53b414fc53f2413117ced5b06e5a9d74 The package checksum don't match upstream. Looks like the download url is some kind of auto-generated tarball, with at new checksum everytime :(. 1. You should ask upstream if there could make reel release tarball somewhere. 2. check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for the rules to package a git snapshot. I any case there should be some comments in the spec about why the source checksum don't match.
Thanks for reviewing this! My comments in-lined: (In reply to comment #4) > There is some issues > > [!] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at > least one supported architecture. > checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes > checking for LIBGVC... yes > checking for GLIB... no > configure: error: Package requirements (glib-2.0 >= 2.12.0 gobject-2.0 > >= 2.12.0) were not met: > No package 'glib-2.0' found > No package 'gobject-2.0' found > Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you > installed software in a non-standard prefix. > Alternatively, you may set the environment variables GLIB_CFLAGS > and GLIB_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. > See the pkg-config man page for more details. > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IlkXRX (%build) > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IlkXRX (%build) > RPM build errors: > > I can build the package in mock looks like some buildrequires are missing > I've refreshed the SPEC file adding a couple of BuildRequires to ensure we have what is needed. > [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > MD5SUM this package : 97cfccf239cd296dcaf7c854788a31e6 > MD5SUM upstream package : 53b414fc53f2413117ced5b06e5a9d74 > > The package checksum don't match upstream. > > Looks like the download url is some kind of auto-generated tarball, with at new > checksum everytime :(. > > 1. You should ask upstream if there could make reel release tarball somewhere. > 2. check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for the rules to > package a git snapshot. > I any case there should be some comments in the spec about why the source > checksum don't match. From asking and looking at git tag (no tags) it seems upstream hasn't made a release yet. So I went ahead and added comments on how to generate a tarball.
Still missing some build requirements checking for LIBGVC... yes checking for GLIB... yes checking for GMODULE... yes checking for LIBVALA... yes checking for LIBGEE... no configure: error: Package requirements (gee-1.0 >= 0.5) were not met: No package 'gee-1.0' found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you Taking a dive into configure.in and it look like you need: libgee-devel gdk-pixbuf2-devel
(In reply to comment #6) > libgee-devel > gdk-pixbuf2-devel Updated. Thanks!
Now it builds in mock, but there is some issues. [!] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/include/valadoc-1.0.h [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint valadoc-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc-debuginfo.i686: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava, Liberal, liberal valadoc.i686: E: description-line-too-long C Valadoc is a documentation generator for generating API documentation from Vala source valadoc.i686: W: no-version-in-last-changelog valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libvaladoc.so valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libvaladoc.a valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.a valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/valadoc-1.0.pc valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.a valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.a valadoc.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/valadoc-1.0.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava, Liberal, liberal valadoc.src: E: description-line-too-long C Valadoc is a documentation generator for generating API documentation from Vala source valadoc.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog valadoc.src:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 1) valadoc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: valadoc-0.2.1.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. ================================================================================ [!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/libvaladoc.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so You need to make a -devel sub package with the .h, .so & .pc files.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
I updated the spec file according to latest comment. Since this packages is written in Vala, I've also added the .vapi files to the devel package. I've added --disable-static to ./configure too, according to the wiki's recommendation.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint valadoc-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava, Liberal, liberal 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint valadoc-devel-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava, Liberal, liberal valadoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ================================================================================ valadoc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvala -> Libava, Liberal, liberal valadoc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: valadoc-0.2.1.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ================================================================================ This is ok [!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so [!] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : e87df86207b826dfe40076df0f0b4a02 MD5SUM upstream package : upstream source not found This is a git snapshot, so this is ok [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!] : 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 is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [!] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Source0: valadoc-%{version}.tar.gz (valadoc-%{version}.tar.gz) [!] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. %define glib_ver 2.25.16 %define gobj_ver 0.9.3 %define vala_ver 0.10.2 %define gee_ver 0.5 %define gdk_ver 2.0 [x] : SHOULD - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Issues: [!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so I'm a little unsure about these .so files, if they are not need at runtime, then they should go into -devel but if they are needed it is ok. [!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. %define glib_ver 2.25.16 %define gobj_ver 0.9.3 %define vala_ver 0.10.2 %define gee_ver 0.5 %define gdk_ver 2.0 use %global instead of %define [!] : 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 is included in %doc. You must not distrubute a GPL package without the license file (COPYING), so you should add to your tarball and put it into %doc Add COPYING from upstream to %doc, replace %define with %global and I will approve it
(In reply to comment #11) > Issues: > [!] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : > /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/devhelp/libdoclet.so > valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : > /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/gtkdoc/libdoclet.so > valadoc-0.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm : > /usr/lib/valadoc/plugins/html/libdoclet.so > > I'm a little unsure about these .so files, if they are not need at > runtime, then they should go into -devel > but if they are needed it is ok. They are dynamically opened via g_module_open(). > > [!] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. > %define glib_ver 2.25.16 > %define gobj_ver 0.9.3 > %define vala_ver 0.10.2 > %define gee_ver 0.5 > %define gdk_ver 2.0 > > use %global instead of %define Done. > Add COPYING from upstream to %doc, replace %define with %global and I will > approve it Done.
Look fine APPROVED
(In reply to comment #13) > Look fine > > APPROVED So whats next to make this available as an update or for FC16?
You need to make a request to get it into the package SCM https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Build it for F16 first, and then add it as an update to F15 etc.
This message is a notice that Fedora 14 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 14. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version' of '14' have been closed as WONTFIX. (Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.) Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were unable to fix it before Fedora 14 reached end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged to click on "Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that version of Fedora. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 988667 ***
This is an odd one. Is Raul a sponsored packager? I find no other review requests, and the question how to get this published is an eye-brow raiser, too. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #18) > This is an odd one. Is Raul a sponsored packager? I find no other review > requests, and the question how to get this published is an eye-brow raiser, > too. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group It's a ludicrous one. I will continue my package review of this software.
Raul is a member of Apache, I will contact him off here.