Bug 781685 - Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Summary: Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: 16
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gregor Tätzner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-01-14 08:00 UTC by Brendan Jones
Modified: 2012-02-02 17:33 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: serd-0.5.0-3.fc16
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-02-02 17:33:18 UTC
Type: ---
gregor: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Brendan Jones 2012-01-14 08:00:56 UTC
serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax

This package is used as part of the LV2 Linux audio plugin standard.

SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec

From the description:

is a lightweight C library for RDF syntax which supports reading and 
writing Turtle and NTriples.

Serd is not intended to be a swiss-army knife of RDF syntax, but rather is 
suited to resource limited or performance critical applications (e.g. 
converting many gigabytes of NTriples to Turtle), or situations where a 
simple reader/writer with minimal dependencies is ideal (e.g. in LV2 
implementations or embedded applications).is a library to make the use of 
LV2 plugins as simple as possible for applications. 

fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-other $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/serd*
serd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs
serd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary serdi
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Comment 1 Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-14 11:18:50 UTC
I'll review serd this weekend.

Comment 2 Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-14 11:41:10 UTC

-plz reformat the spec file

rpmlint serd-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 
serd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs
serd.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 3)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

-the license of serd is ICS (http://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license) and not GPL 2

-otherwise I can't see any issues, great work :)

Comment 3 Brendan Jones 2012-01-14 12:03:56 UTC
Thanks Greg, changed as requested

SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec

Comment 4 Martin Gieseking 2012-01-14 12:07:18 UTC
I suggest to move the section 1 manpage (serdi.1*) to the base package as it documents the command-line utility. 

In order to prevent adding unwanted files, please be a bit more specific in %files, e.g.:
  %{_mandir}/man1/* => %{_mandir}/man1/serdi.1*
  %{_mandir}/man3/* => %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*

Comment 5 Brendan Jones 2012-01-14 12:57:25 UTC
Thanks Greg, should have caught that one, was staring at me in rpmlint output of the binary package "serd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary serdi"

SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-3.fc16.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec

Comment 6 Gregor Tätzner 2012-01-14 13:52:01 UTC
Heh, comment 4 wasn't me ;) However:

Package Review

- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: 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
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[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 Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/greg/projects/Review/781685/serd-0.5.0.tar.bz2 :
  MD5SUM this package     : 33688d9ad0775647124d1e86dc4cf387
  MD5SUM upstream package : 33688d9ad0775647124d1e86dc4cf387

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: 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 Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
[ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:


Comment 7 Brendan Jones 2012-01-14 16:07:47 UTC

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: serd
Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Owners: bsjones
Branches: f16

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-01-15 22:25:59 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-01-16 10:27:10 UTC
serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-01-16 21:26:13 UTC
Package serd-0.5.0-3.fc16:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing serd-0.5.0-3.fc16'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 11 Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 12:13:10 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: serd
Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Owners: bsjones
Branches: f15

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-01-20 13:57:30 UTC
Do you want f16 as well?

Comment 13 Brendan Jones 2012-01-20 14:38:03 UTC
Sorry, yes. F16 has already been created. Am I going about this the right way?


New Package SCM Request
Package Name: serd
Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
Owners: bsjones
Branches: f15 f16

Comment 14 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-01-20 15:05:27 UTC
No, the tools we use handle this differently, submit a Package Change
Request for just f15.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2012-02-02 17:33:18 UTC
serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.