Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.1.6-2.src.rpm Description: Libisofs is a library to create an ISO-9660 filesystem and supports extensions like RockRidge or Joliet. It is also a full featured ISO-9660 editor, allowing you to modify an ISO image or multisession disc, including file addition or removal, change of file names and attributes etc. It supports the extension AAIP which allows to store ACLs and xattr in ISO-9660 filesystems as well. As it is linked with zlib, it supports zisofs compression, too. RHEL 6 is shipping libisofs-0.6.32-1.el6, but Red Hat doesn't seem to be interested to update libisofs to a more recent version, which would be required to build libisoburn/xorriso for RHEL 6. This package can be installed in parallel with the regular RHEL 6 package due to renaming.
I see these rpmlint errors libisofs1.src: W: strange-permission libisofs-1.1.6.tar.gz 0444L libisofs1.src:65: W: macro-in-comment %doc
Before you review I would like to bump the package to a more recent version.
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.3.8-2.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.4.0-2.src.rpm
Russell, could you proceed with the review, please? Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.src.rpm
Invoking "Policy for stalled package reviews" [1] here and taking up the package for review. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Hi robert, sorry for the delay. I got caught up in several other things. I will have this taken care of in the next three or four days.
Hmmm ... build fails. + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd libisofs-1.4.2 + LICENSEDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1 + export LICENSEDIR + /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1 + cp -pr COPYING /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/libisofs1 + exit 0 RPM build errors: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libisofs1-1.4.2-2.fc25.x86_64/usr/lib64/libisofs1*.so.* This is because the library generated is /usr/lib64/libisofs.so.6.78.0 I think. In reponse to our email conversation, I think it might be best to use libisofs1*so* to build this library. This might simplify building dependent packages (kust passing -libisofs1 at compile time) without having to address the different path in relation to libisofs. Can you please take a look at this? Please also a do a koji scratch build. Thanks.
The build failure is because you built against Fedora rather EPEL, while this package is intended for EPEL only. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13869361
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #9) > The build failure is because you built against Fedora rather EPEL, while > this package is intended for EPEL only. > > Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13869361 Oh yes indeed! :(
Just two questions. See below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3409920 bytes in 72 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ---> Any reason not to create a -doc package? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/744416-libisofs1/licensecheck.txt ---> Nothing seems problematic. libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-dummy.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-freebsd.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip-os-linux.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip_0_2.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/aaip_0_2.h libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/hfsplus_case.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/libiso_msgs.c libisofs-1.4.2/libisofs/libiso_msgs.h ---> All these are listed under "unknown" by licensecheck. Looking at the source files, all are GPLv2. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> /usr/share/licenses/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYING [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. ---> Please fix this. Should also include MIT. License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libisofs1-devel , libisofs1-debuginfo ---> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}, pkgconfig [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3471360 bytes in /usr/share ---> ---> Any reason not to create a -doc package? [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libisofs1-1.4.2-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libisofs1-devel-1.4.2-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libisofs1-debuginfo-1.4.2-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm libisofs1-1.4.2-2.el7.centos.src.rpm libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Libisofs -> Libidos libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multisession -> simulation libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xattr -> attract libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib libisofs1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zisofs -> kissoffs libisofs1.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.2-2 ['1.4.2-2.el7.centos', '1.4.2-2.centos'] libisofs1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYRIGHT libisofs1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYING libisofs1-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Libisofs -> Libidos libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multisession -> simulation libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xattr -> attract libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib libisofs1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zisofs -> kissoffs 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. ---> None of this is an issue. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libisofs1-debuginfo-1.4.2-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libisofs1-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libisofs1.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.2-2 ['1.4.2-2.el7.centos', '1.4.2-2.centos'] libisofs1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYRIGHT libisofs1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libisofs1-1.4.2/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- libisofs1-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libisofs1(x86-64) libisofs1.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig libisofs1-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libisofs1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libacl.so.1()(64bit) libacl.so.1(ACL_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libisofs1-devel: libisofs1-devel libisofs1-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libisofs1-1) libisofs1-debuginfo: libisofs1-debuginfo libisofs1-debuginfo(x86-64) libisofs1: libisofs1 libisofs1(x86-64) libisofs1.so.6()(64bit) libisofs1.so.6(LIBISOFS6)(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://files.libburnia-project.org/releases/libisofs-1.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5e7f3ea613a78924dde979f699427b1c6b85ba4540d275aa67945b4a70fb3ab CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5e7f3ea613a78924dde979f699427b1c6b85ba4540d275aa67945b4a70fb3ab Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 744416 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #11) > Just two questions. See below. Aweseome, thank you very much for the time and efforts to do the review! > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 3409920 bytes in 72 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > > ---> Any reason not to create a -doc package? Good point, didn't look to the size for a long time; investigating now. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > > ---> Please fix this. Should also include MIT. > > License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ Maybe I'm overlooking something...but which files are MIT?
Created attachment 1152638 [details] licensecheck Sorry! meant to attach the file. just the install-sh. Please take a look. Now, i'm not so sure about adding MIT.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm." - as the "install-sh" file is not part of the binary RPM, I would not add MIT to the spec file (at least that's my understanding).
Actually, you don't need to add MIT. install-sh is not part of the binary rpm. So, my comment about the license field is incorrect.
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #14) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > says: "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the > binary > rpm." - as the "install-sh" file is not part of the binary RPM, I would not > add MIT to the spec file (at least that's my understanding). Yes indeed. I had written the same thing .. :) So, -doc subpackage is the only "issue" remaining.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #16) > So, -doc subpackage is the only "issue" remaining. Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1.spec SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libisofs1-1.4.2-3.src.rpm
$ diff -Nu srpm-unpacked/libisofs1.spec libisofs1.spec --- srpm-unpacked/libisofs1.spec 2015-12-26 10:36:39.000000000 -0500 +++ libisofs1.spec 2016-04-30 17:13:37.000000000 -0400 @@ -3,14 +3,14 @@ Summary: Library to create ISO 9660 disk images Name: libisofs1 Version: 1.4.2 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} # make_isohybrid_mbr.c is under LGPLv2+, the rest under GPLv2+ License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://libburnia-project.org/ Source: http://files.libburnia-project.org/releases/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz Patch0: libisofs-0.6.16-multilib.patch -BuildRequires: libacl-devel, zlib-devel, doxygen, graphviz +BuildRequires: libacl-devel, zlib-devel %if 0%{?rhel} >= 6 BuildRequires: autoconf, automake, libtool %endif @@ -34,6 +34,19 @@ The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}. +%package doc +Summary: Documentation files for %{name} +Group: Documentation +%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 6 +BuildArch: noarch +%endif +BuildRequires: doxygen, graphviz + +%description doc +Libisofs is a library to create an ISO-9660 filesystem and supports +extensions like RockRidge or Joliet. This package contains the API +documentation for developing applications that use %{name}. + %prep %setup -q -n %{pkgname}-%{version} %patch0 -p1 -b .multilib @@ -82,12 +95,18 @@ %files devel %defattr(-,root,root,-) -%doc doc/html -%{_includedir}/%{name} +%{_includedir}/%{name}/ %{_libdir}/%{name}.so %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/%{name}*.pc +%files doc +%defattr(-,root,root,-) +%doc doc/html/ + %changelog +* Sat Apr 30 2016 Robert Scheck <robert> 1.4.2-3 +- Move large documentation into -doc subpackage (#744416) + * Sat Dec 26 2015 Robert Scheck <robert> 1.4.2-2 - Reworked spec file to build libisofs1 for RHEL >= 6 (#744416) ---> spec file changes look fine. Package builds on all arches. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13871208 -doc subpackage generated. I have nothing else to complain about. Package APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libisofs1
Package request has been denied with the reason: Already done in 5121
Package request has been denied with the reason: Done in 5121
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-872f0b825c
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-88e31bd2ae
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-872f0b825c
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-88e31bd2ae
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libisofs1-1.4.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.