Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10-1/augeas-vala.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10-1/augeas-vala-0.10.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Vala bindings for augeas.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4567102 It fails for f18. From build.log: cd tests && ./augeas.vala Package gobject-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `gobject-2.0.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'gobject-2.0' found error: pkg-config exited with status 256 Please add glib2-devel to BuildRequires. The initial cleaning of buildroot in %install is an artifact from "rpmdev-newspec". Please remove that line unless you want to provide your package for EPEL 5. The %defattr line in %files is obsolete for ages, even for EPEL 5. Please remove.
Mario, Thanks for this feedback, I'll update the spec appropriately.
(In reply to comment #1) > Scratch build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4567102 > > It fails for f18. From build.log: > > cd tests && ./augeas.vala > Package gobject-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path. > Perhaps you should add the directory containing `gobject-2.0.pc' > to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable > No package 'gobject-2.0' found > error: pkg-config exited with status 256 Vala should find the package itself, if it is installed in the default pkgconfig path. Maybe glib2-devel wasn't installed? > Please add glib2-devel to BuildRequires. Done > The initial cleaning of buildroot in %install is an artifact from > "rpmdev-newspec". Please remove that line unless you want to provide your > package for EPEL 5. Eventually, I've removed it for now. Spec and SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-2/ > The %defattr line in %files is obsolete for ages, even for EPEL 5. Please > remove. Done
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4583244 It fails again, build-log says: + autoreconf -i ./bootstrap: line 8: autoreconf: command not found Please add autoconf to BuildRequires.
Hey, thanks. I'm now also doing somoe F18/19/rawhide builds to prevent such problems. It seems as if automake is also missing. Will update teh spec shortly.
http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-3/ Some more changes were needed, autoconf, automake, and augeas as a build req (for tests) But now builds fine on F18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585375 F19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585392 rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4585394 (outstanding)
Based on the f18 build: $ rpmlint -i -v * augeas-vala.src: I: checking augeas-vala.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) augeas-vala.src: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-3.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking augeas-vala.noarch: E: devel-dependency augeas-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) augeas-vala.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.vapi This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the executable bits or move the file elsewhere. augeas-vala.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/augeas-vala-0.10.0/COPYING.LIB 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. augeas-vala.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.deps This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the executable bits or move the file elsewhere. augeas-vala.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-3.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. The invalid-source warning is nothing of interest, because we have a Git checkout. Also the wrong FSF address doesn't need to be fixed for the time being, because we don't touch any provided license info. But consider to fix it in the next upstream release. There remain the executable bits in /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.vapi and /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.deps. Remove them, if we may assume these files haven't to be executed directly. BTW, to avoid some patching the sources: You are the upstream author, you could roll a new upstream release instantly ;)
(In reply to comment #7) > Based on the f18 build: > > $ rpmlint -i -v * > augeas-vala.src: I: checking > augeas-vala.src: I: checking-url > http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) > augeas-vala.src: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-3.tar.gz > The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. That's weird - gitorious is online :) > augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking > augeas-vala.noarch: E: devel-dependency augeas-devel > Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package > itself. rpmlint complains, but it's needed (this package provides binding for the devel libraries, therefor we need a require on augeas-devel) > augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking-url > http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) > augeas-vala.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.vapi > This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for > executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is > meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the > executable bits or move the file elsewhere. the executable is not set (checked that before) and the other vapis are also kept in that dir ... but will look into it .. > augeas-vala.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/augeas-vala-0.10.0/COPYING.LIB > 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. yep, ack > augeas-vala.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.deps > This text file has executable bits set or is located in a path dedicated for > executables, but lacks a shebang and cannot thus be executed. If the file is > meant to be an executable script, add the shebang, otherwise remove the > executable bits or move the file elsewhere. see above > augeas-vala.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-3.tar.gz > The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. > > > The invalid-source warning is nothing of interest, because we have a Git > checkout. > Also the wrong FSF address doesn't need to be fixed for the time being, > because we don't touch any provided license info. But consider to fix it in > the next upstream release. ack > There remain the executable bits in /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.vapi and > /usr/share/vala/vapi/augeas.deps. Remove them, if we may assume these files > haven't to be executed directly. mh automak must set them, i'll check as said above .. > BTW, to avoid some patching the sources: You are the upstream author, you > could roll a new upstream release instantly ;) definetly. danke for your patience, mario :) btw. are you on #fedora-de?
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Based on the f18 build: > > > > $ rpmlint -i -v * > > augeas-vala.src: I: checking > > augeas-vala.src: I: checking-url > > http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) > > augeas-vala.src: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-3.tar.gz > > The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. > > That's weird - gitorious is online :) Yes, of course. But rpmlint doesn't recognize this as a valid source. Usually we need a direct download link in the form http://foo/foo-1.0.tar.gz or (as you already did) to add some explanation how the source tarball can be fetched. > btw. are you on #fedora-de? No, but of course you can contact me by mail, if needed. Regarding the executable warning: If there are no such bits set (not tested yet) you should have a look at other vala packages which store similar files there. Then we should apply the same policy, regardless of the - maybe - false positive rpmlint issues.
http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-3/ Hey, I've updated the spec and makefile - INSTAL_SCRIPT was used instead of using INSTALL_DATA, I've also updated the copying.lib file now everything should be fine .. Hopefully there isn't a last minute thing i've missed. thanks, fabian
It's actually http://fedorapeople.org/~fabiand/augeas-vala/0.10.0-4/
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4611437 $ rpmlint -i -v * augeas-vala.src: I: checking augeas-vala.src: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) augeas-vala.src: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking augeas-vala.noarch: E: devel-dependency augeas-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. augeas-vala.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.gitorious.org/valastuff/augeas-vala/ (timeout 10 seconds) augeas-vala.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. --------------------------------- 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 * 5b1a3a499698739e493502661f2c100c583ea9648ec4c87e748f350d542a3b80 augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.tar.gz 5b1a3a499698739e493502661f2c100c583ea9648ec4c87e748f350d542a3b80 augeas-vala-0.10.0-4.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 ----------------
What about a SCM request...?
Thanks for reminding. I'm not so often proposing packages.
No SCM request found.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: augeas-vala Short Description: Vala bindings for augeas Owners: fabiand Branches: f17 f18
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks Mario and Jon.