Spec URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che2-test/dcm4che2-test.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che2-test/dcm4che2-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Test images for dcm4che2 The srpm is 70M, still uploading :)
I'll review it! Mario
Hi Ankur! koji build works fine: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3093194 So far I found the following problems: - Is it possible to add a group? (Maybe some of the groups you recently created for this purpose?) - if it is taken from a svn checkout, shouldn't it be named accordingly? (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines). Something like dcm4chee-test-2.6-YYYYMMDDsvn<rev>? And a thing I don't understand: - In the add_to_maven section, what are the project_group_id and project_artifact_id? Please comment on those issues and I'll make a formal review. Thanks Mario
(In reply to comment #2) > Hi Ankur! > > koji build works fine: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3093194 > > So far I found the following problems: > > - Is it possible to add a group? (Maybe some of the groups you recently created > for this purpose?) I haven't added groups to comps yet. I didn't want to create empty ones :$. Anyway, the GROUPS tag here isn't the one that we add in comps (yum groups). It's one of those present in /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.9.0/GROUPS. Not sure if any of them fit in for this package though :/ > - if it is taken from a svn checkout, shouldn't it be named accordingly? > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines). Something like > dcm4chee-test-2.6-YYYYMMDDsvn<rev>? > It is a svn checkout, but only because there isn't a release for this. It's tagged as version 2.6, so I'm not sure if I need to use the svn or the version. > And a thing I don't understand: > > - In the add_to_maven section, what are the project_group_id and > project_artifact_id? > I've corrected this part in the spec. > Please comment on those issues and I'll make a formal review. > > Thanks > > Mario http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che2-test/dcm4che2-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che2-test/dcm4che2-test.spec * Thu May 26 2011 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.6-1 - Correct add to maven depmap command - initial rpm build Thanks! Ankur
Hi Mario, Could you please wait a day or two before the review. Even though the package builds properly, I think there's something wrong with the placement of the pom files etc., which is essential to be able to build packages that depend on this one (such as dcm4che). I've mailed upstream requesting them to detail out the build method for the test-images. I expect a reply soon, and will try to replicate their method in the spec. Thanks, Ankur
Sure Ankur! I'll stay tuned then... Best, Mario
Hi Mario! With some help from the fedora-java folks, I managed to correct the package. Please find the latest at: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm Even dcm4che accepts it as a dep etc., which gives me confidence that the packaging is ok :) Thanks, Ankur
Hi Ankur! Here it goes the review: +/!/- mean ok/bad/does not apply ! MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint in not silent: [mario@shadow rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-javadoc-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 dcm4che-test.noarch: W: no-documentation dcm4che-test.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/javadoc/dcm4che-test/apidocs/javadoc.sh Please consider: - use recognized license names (rpmlint -i will give you the names) - mark /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test as a conf-file, if you feel it correct ! MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . Why do you not call the package dcm4che2-test instead of dcm4che-test? Moreover, as it is a svn checkout, I think it should be named accordingly. However I understand that this is tagged as a stable release, so it's your decision. + 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. Please use a name recognized by rpmlint - 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. They differs: [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ svn co https://dcm4che.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/dcm4che/dcm4che2-test/tags/dcm4che2-test-2.6 [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ tar -cvzf dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz dcm4che2-test-2.6/ [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz 9023b1143b1089fbaaedb752dfb8139a dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz 07e709c479df9301324053e2d605309f /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. The package successfully builds in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3098038 - 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: Header files must be in a -devel package. - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - 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: 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. + MUST: The package follows the Java Packaging guidelines (at least as far as I got them :) ) Please fix all the reported issues and I'll approve the package. Best, Mario
(In reply to comment #2) > Hi Ankur! > - if it is taken from a svn checkout, shouldn't it be named accordingly? > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines). Something like > dcm4chee-test-2.6-YYYYMMDDsvn<rev>? Correct. The versioning scheme is wrong. It must indicate that it was built feom SCM snapshot. The %{release} field should contain something like this: 0.<rpm_release>.YYYYMMDDsvn%{svn_rev} Note the leading zero before actual rpm release number.
(In reply to comment #7) > Hi Ankur! > > Here it goes the review: +/!/- mean ok/bad/does not apply > > ! MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > rpmlint in not silent: > > [mario@shadow rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm > RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-javadoc-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: no-documentation > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java > docs, Java-docs, Avocados > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/javadoc/dcm4che-test/apidocs/javadoc.sh > > > Please consider: > - use recognized license names (rpmlint -i will give you the names) Corrected. > - mark /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test as a conf-file, if you feel it correct I checked up another java package spec. maven fragments are not marked as conf files it looks like. > > ! MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > > Why do you not call the package dcm4che2-test instead of dcm4che-test? the "2" in "dcm4che2" stands for versioning. It's not a lot of use including it in the name. dcm4che2-2.... is redundant IMO? > > Moreover, as it is a svn checkout, I think it should be named accordingly. > However I understand that this is tagged as a stable release, so it's your > decision. > Corrected. > + 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. > > Please use a name recognized by rpmlint > Corrected. > - 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. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > > They differs: > > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ svn co > https://dcm4che.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/dcm4che/dcm4che2-test/tags/dcm4che2-test-2.6 > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ tar -cvzf dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz dcm4che2-test-2.6/ > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > 9023b1143b1089fbaaedb752dfb8139a dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum > /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > 07e709c479df9301324053e2d605309f > /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > I've done a fresh svn export and made the tar. This shouldn't happen now. > > + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > > The package successfully builds in koji: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3098038 > > - 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: Header files must be in a -devel package. > - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > - 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: 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. > + MUST: The package follows the Java Packaging guidelines (at least as far as I > got them :) ) > > Please fix all the reported issues and I'll approve the package. > > Best, > > Mario I think I've fixed them all :) New spec, srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516.src.rpm Thanks!! Ankur
Great work Ankur! + koji can correctly build the package http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3099815 ! rpmlint is *not* silent [mario@shadow koji]$ rpmlint *.rpm dcm4che-test.noarch: W: no-documentation this is ok: we have a separate package for documentation dcm4che-test.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz this is ok, the package is taken from svn dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados Harmless dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/javadoc/dcm4che-test/apidocs/javadoc.sh just add the build root to the find line that you already put in the spec. This made the trick for me: find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} -name "javadoc.sh" -exec chmod a-x '{}' \; 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. ! md5sum Still md5sums are different: 477961623e091b2d5f7119f2a69fc1ff dcm4che2-test-svn-2.6.tar.gz 381ce690ad2c5deff411f79eeea9c1d9 dcm4che2-test-2.6-srpm.tar.gz Thi is strange, I obtain two different tarballs: -rw-rw-r--. 1 mario mario 36713364 May 29 21:25 dcm4che2-test-2.6-srpm.tar.gz -rw-rw-r--. 1 mario mario 36706444 May 30 08:51 dcm4che2-test-svn-2.6.tar.gz however, after extracting, diff shows no differences: diff -r dcm4che2-test-2.6-srpm/ dcm4che2-test-svn-2.6/ *puzzled* So, the package is basically ok: if you don't mind, please repost the srpm with the changed find line so that the last error in rpmlint disappears. In the meantime I'll investigate why md5sum outputs differ. It is probably nothing important or a mistake on my side because the tarballs look identical with diff. Best Mario
Hi Mario, I've corrected the find command. I have no clue why the md5sum is coming different. Could it be different versions of tar? [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpm -q tar tar-1.25-6.fc15.x86_64 Fresh spec, srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516.src.rpm Thanks!! Ankur
No, do not worry: Peter just explained me that md5sum is not so useful in case of tarballs generated by svn checkout. They are identical when I checked with diff, so this is ok. The package is APPROVED. Congratulations Ankur!
Thanks Mario, Peter!!!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dcm4che-test Short Description: Test images for dcm4che2 Owners: ankursinha Branches: f15 f14 InitialCC: susmit mrceresa
Git done (by process-git-requests).
dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516
dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.