Spec URL: http://db.tt/ZQZ0wKj SRPM URL: http://db.tt/3oVS9c0 Description: Zebra is a high-performance, general-purpose structured text indexing and retrieval engine. It reads structured records in a variety of input formats such as email, XML, and MARC) and allows access to them through exact Boolean search expressions and relevance-ranked free-text queries. This is my first package, and as such I am seeking a sponsor. My aim is to package all of the requirements for installing the koha (www.koha-community.org) library system in Fedora (currently, only Ubuntu can install Koha from binary packages). Zebra is the database used for MARC record storage and retrieval.
Nicholas has a sponsor - no need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR any more.
Some initial comments: You should drop libxml2-devel from BuildRequires, because it is needed by libyaz-devel. If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL 5, drop BuildRoot, the initial cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install, the %clean section and the %defattr line from %files. In any case drop them when importing your spec into the Git repo for all branches other than el5. Generally it is not needed to add -devel packages as extra requirements to the libidzebra-devel package. In almost all cases (for low-level programming languages such as C) rpm picks them up anyway. In doubt, build your package without to add any runtime dependencies and have a look at what rpm was able to found automatically. The files ChangeLog and TODO have to be added to %doc. Maybe the doc files should be even added to the lib* package instead of the main package. The libs are installable separately, and in this case no documentation will be present. LICENSE.zebra appears in all packages. If you add it to the lib* package only, it is always available, because all the other subpackages and the main package depend on it. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
Ping...?
Obviously the requester isn't longer interested in to maintain this package. I will wait a few days and then close this bug as FE-DEADREVIEW. @Nicholas, last chance to reanimate it ;)
This completely fell off my radar - apologies. I've spotted it, though - and have ammended (eventually :-P !) the spec file as suggested (and updated to the latest release). I've included the LICENSE.zebra in the modules package, because rpmlint complains about it not being there.... New SPEC file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6gbd3h1fcddcdh/idzebra.spec New SRPM file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8av96n4tspo1jj/idzebra-2.0.52-1.fc17.src.rpm
Sorry - those download links take you to a landing page. These'll bypass that: New SPEC file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6gbd3h1fcddcdh/idzebra.spec?dl=1 New SRPM file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8av96n4tspo1jj/idzebra-2.0.52-1.fc17.src.rpm?dl=1
(In reply to comment #5) > I've included the LICENSE.zebra in the modules package, because rpmlint > complains about it not being there.... It's a false positive warning from rpmlint. The license file is available from the -libs package in any case, and that one is a dependency of the -modules package anyway. No need to use the file more than once. I found in some file headers the GPLv2 declaration with the "newer versions" clause, that's why the license is GPLv2+. %package -n lib%{name} Summary: Zebra libraries Group: Development/Libraries Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} The libraries depend on the main package...? Somewhat odd, in most - or almost all - cases it is vice versa. The Requires line belongs to the main package. Drop the initial cleaning of %{buildroot} from %install. This is obsolete, as already mentioned in comment #2. The BuildRequires would be better readable if you would put one package per line. This is just a suggestion, you are not forced by the packaging guidelines to change it. I take this for a full review.
Thanks Mario. I've made those final few changes... New SPEC file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6gbd3h1fcddcdh/idzebra.spec?dl=1 New SRPM file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbmx0pudnz6gzft/idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc17.src.rpm?dl=1
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4642349 $ rpmlint -i -v * idzebra.i686: I: checking idzebra.i686: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/idzebra-2.0-examples/marcxml/MARC21slim2INDEX.xsl The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. idzebra.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/idzebra-2.0-examples/marcxml/zebra.xsl The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. idzebra.src: I: checking idzebra.src: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra.src: I: checking-url http://ftp.indexdata.dk/pub/zebra/idzebra-2.0.52.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra.x86_64: I: checking idzebra.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/idzebra-2.0-examples/marcxml/MARC21slim2INDEX.xsl The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. idzebra.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/idzebra-2.0-examples/marcxml/zebra.xsl The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. idzebra-debuginfo.i686: I: checking idzebra-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking idzebra-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) idzebra.spec: I: checking-url http://ftp.indexdata.dk/pub/zebra/idzebra-2.0.52.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra.i686: I: checking libidzebra.i686: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libidzebra-2.0.so.0.0.1 exit This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. libidzebra.x86_64: I: checking libidzebra.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libidzebra-2.0.so.0.0.1 exit.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. libidzebra-devel.i686: I: checking libidzebra-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra-devel.x86_64: I: checking libidzebra-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra-modules.i686: I: checking libidzebra-modules.i686: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra-modules.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. libidzebra-modules.x86_64: I: checking libidzebra-modules.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.indexdata.dk/zebra/ (timeout 10 seconds) libidzebra-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 11 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. Still some issues, though. The wrong FSF address is to be considered as a warning, not as an error. Don't touch the appropriate files. All you have to do is to give a hint to the upstream developers so that they can fix it in future releases. The shared-lib-calls-exit warning is also not up to you to fix. Warn the upstream folks, that's all. However, it makes debugging more difficult, though. No documentation in a -devel package doesn't matter, the documentation for the software is always available from the lib* package. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv2+ [+] 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 sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * 63c608d78fcd4ce80b29693f5e1c1c8157b41c19b9d424a68e72acda520ad0de idzebra-2.0.52.tar.gz 63c608d78fcd4ce80b29693f5e1c1c8157b41c19b9d424a68e72acda520ad0de idzebra-2.0.52.tar.gz.orig [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [+] 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. [+] 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: A 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: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [.] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] 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. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ----------------
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: idzebra Short Description: High performance structured text indexing and retrieval engine Owners: vanoudt Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc18
idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc17
idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
idzebra-2.0.52-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.