Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/llconf/llconf.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/llconf/llconf-0.4.6-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: llconf (loss less configuration) tool is meant as a middle ware to unify control over configuration files. I tries to parse different configuration files using different modules, and rewrite them after applying changes, without destroying user changes and comments, so that it is still possible to edit the files with a common text editor.
$ rpmlint -v * llconf.src: I: checking llconf.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.src: I: checking-url http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found llconf.i686: I: checking llconf.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary llconf llconf-debuginfo.i686: I: checking llconf-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-devel.i686: I: checking llconf-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-libs.i686: I: checking llconf-libs.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.spec: I: checking-url http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. It's odd that rpmlint cannot verify the tarball location. If I feed Firefox with this link, it works for me. You can drop the BR to autoconf and automake, libtool already depends on them. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3029811
IMHO, the Source URL check fails because Google blocks some requests according to User-Agent string. I'm against dropping BR on autotools because the spec file calls them explicitly (not via libtool) and because libtool in general does not need autotools. If the dependency presents on libtool in Fedora, this is mere a bug of Fedora packaging or temporal libtool excess. E.g. libtool 1.5.* or 2.4 does not need autotools at run-time.
> loss less AFAIK, the correct spelling would either be "loss-less" or "lossless". > /usr/share/doc/llconf-devel-0.4.6/examples/ Completely non-working. Makefile* and file "wizard" are unusable. File example.c cannot be compiled due to expecting headers in cwd, $ gcc -o example $(pkg-config --cflags --libs llconf) example.c example.c:29:22: fatal error: strutils.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. and non-installed headers, too: $ gcc -o example -I/usr/include/llconf -lllconf example.c example.c:34:28: fatal error: parsers/pslave.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. Considering that the last release is from Nov 2007, does anything use this library already? Further, I've given the "llconf" executable a try. With a most basic iptables config file from F-15, it already removes some things such as the optional [0:0]. With INI files, it completely reformats them with inserted tabs.
(In reply to comment #3) > > loss less > > AFAIK, the correct spelling would either be "loss-less" or "lossless". > I wanted to fix it but I wasn't sure "lossless" was codified. > > > /usr/share/doc/llconf-devel-0.4.6/examples/ > > Completely non-working. Makefile* and file "wizard" are unusable. File > example.c cannot be compiled due to expecting headers in cwd, > This is not supposed to compile. It's mere an example. It compiles within original tar ball but does not install. I wanted to provide as much as documentation as possible. > > Considering that the last release is from Nov 2007, does anything use this > library already? > Yes, it does. > Further, I've given the "llconf" executable a try. With a most basic iptables > config file from F-15, it already removes some things such as the optional > [0:0]. With INI files, it completely reformats them with inserted tabs. This is upstream problem. You can report it there.
I've published updated package on the same address. It installs parsers headers into subdirectory as intended by example.c and qualifies includes in example.c to be compatible with pkg-config output. Also the example files are delivered within proper binary package.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4558509 $ rpmlint -i -v * llconf.src: I: checking llconf.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.src: I: checking-url http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. llconf.i686: I: checking llconf.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary llconf Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. llconf.x86_64: I: checking llconf.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary llconf Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. llconf-debuginfo.i686: I: checking llconf-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/llconf-0.4.6/src/parsers/dhcp_leases.c 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. llconf-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking llconf-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/llconf-0.4.6/src/parsers/dhcp_leases.c 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. llconf-devel.i686: I: checking llconf-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-devel.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/llconf-devel-0.4.6/example.c 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. llconf-devel.x86_64: I: checking llconf-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/llconf-devel-0.4.6/example.c 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. llconf-libs.i686: I: checking llconf-libs.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf-libs.x86_64: I: checking llconf-libs.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/llconf/ (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.spec: I: checking-url http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) llconf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://llconf.googlecode.com/files/llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. Your package looks fine so far. Just one objection: The %defattr line is obsolete for ages. Please remove it from the file lists unless you want to provide your package for EPEL5. The download link is correct. It's a problem on Google's side, I can download it using wget correctly. Regarding the old FSF address, you don't have to touch the license declarations in any way. Usually, inform upstream about this issue. In view of the age of the latest tarball, I would consider this rather senseless. Doesn't matter.
Updated package (a typo fixed in summary, defattr removed) is available on: Spec URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/llconf/llconf.spec SRPM URL: http://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/llconf/llconf-0.4.6-1.fc19.src.rpm
--------------------------------- 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. LGPLv2+ [+] 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 * e7c22541f64fb6f60d790efc7a7f6867867e091ca2d45c89eecb3fa73a62097f llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz e7c22541f64fb6f60d790efc7a7f6867867e091ca2d45c89eecb3fa73a62097f llconf-0.4.6.tar.gz.packaged [+] 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: llconf Short Description: Loss-less configuration file parser Owners: ppisar Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thank you for the review and the repository.