Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build-0-0.2.20120605git54553d3.fc18.src.rpm Description: Ninja is a small build system with a focus on speed. It differs from other build systems in two major respects: it is designed to have its input files generated by a higher-level build system, and it is designed to run builds as fast as possible. Fedora Account System Username: mathstuf % lintmock fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ninja-build.src: W: strange-permission ninja-build.spec 0640L ninja-build.src: W: strange-permission martine-ninja-54553d3.tar.gz 0640L ninja-build.src: W: invalid-url Source0: martine-ninja-54553d3.tar.gz ninja-build.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ninja-bash-completion ninja-build.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ninja 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Missing "Group: Development/Tools"? Is there a reason lintmock doesn't like your SRPM file permissions? (i.e. is there a reason they are like that?) (xz takes ~18 KiB off the .tar.gz)
(In reply to comment #0) Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build-0-0.3.20120605git54553d3.fc18.src.rpm Add a Group tag. The permissions are due to my umask of 027. They'll be fine when built on Koji. The .gz file is direct from github, not homespun.
(In reply to comment #2) > Add a Group tag. Thanks. > The permissions are due to my umask of 027. They'll be fine when built on > Koji. If koji fixes them, that's okay then... > The .gz file is direct from github, not homespun. Ah. Though, in that case, can not the source URL be https://github.com/martine/ninja/tarball/%{githash}? :-) I'll try to get to a full review over the weekend when I have free time.
(MUST) rpmlint output is missing for latest packages. (In particular, the latest changelog entry is missing the git hash, which I assume is why rpmlint reports "incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-0.3.20120605git".) (MUST) python is not listed as a BuildRequires? (I would be willing to believe python is an exception, though unless I am blind, I don't see it in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2?) (MUST) /usr/share/zsh/site-functions/ is not owned by the package or any required packages (SHOULD) currently, no manpage is known to be available (upstream or otherwise) MUST items verified: - name is okay - .spec name is okay - package meets guidelines AFAICS (pity there is no bash-completion-filesystem) - code license is okay (ASL 2.0; did spot check of sources to verify) - .spec gives correct license - COPYING present in rpm - .spec is en_US and is legible - builds successfully on x86_64 - no locale-dependent data - no static or shared libraries (also covers -static, -devel) - does not bundle system libs - no files are listed more than once in %files - permissions look okay - macro use is consistent AFAICT - package content is permissible - doc is not large, and not required for execution - no .la's - not a GUI application - all file names are ASCII Was unable to verify source tarball checksum, probably due to how it was generated. Did clone upstream git repo and verified directory contents (diff -ru) are the same. (Curiously, the tarball I generated with 'git archive' is identical size, and 'tar tvf' listings are also identical. Also, consider giving either github URL or git archive command in .spec to make it easier for curious folk to regenerate the tarball.) I don't have ready access to verify if it FTB on any architectures, but have no reason to believe it wouldn't build. Ergo, no ExcludeArch expected. I am insufficiently familiar with relocatable packages; I don't believe it is or is intended to be? Owns /etc/bash_completion.d (along with at least a half dozen other packages). One could read this as a violation of a MUST, but as I understand the directory ownership issue in this case, it is okay. SHOULD items verified: - license comes from upstream - program appears to run correctly - bash completion works
vim syntax doesn't seem to work OOTB? (should it? or is this expected?)
Created attachment 592653 [details] "patch" to fix vim auto-syntax So, it's not too hard to fix the previous point; necessary vim commands attached. I put this in vimfiles/ftdetect, but not sure if that's the appropriate place (maybe it should be part of syntax/ninja.vim?).
Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc18.src.rpm Fixed vim/ftdetect, zsh-stuff ownership, and githash missing from some changelogs.
Confirmed items from comment #4 are fixed (also that vim auto-syntax now works, as advertised). The only outstanding issue I see is the missing manpage, which IMO should not be a blocker. Now... just need someone that's already a packager to verify :-).
Hi, guideline ask that you give the list of command to generate the tarball, or the url : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/829116-ninja-build/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate 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 is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ninja-build-debuginfo-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.src.rpm ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm ninja-build.src: W: strange-permission ninja-build.spec 0640L ninja-build.src: W: strange-permission martine-ninja-54553d3.tar.gz 0640L ninja-build.src: W: strange-permission ninja.vim 0640L ninja-build.src: W: invalid-url Source0: martine-ninja-54553d3.tar.gz ninja-build.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ninja-bash-completion ninja-build.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ninja 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ninja-build-debuginfo ninja-build ninja-build-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US ninja-build.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ninja-bash-completion ninja-build.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ninja 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ninja-build-debuginfo-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs-filesystem libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vim-filesystem Provides -------- ninja-build-debuginfo-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm: ninja-build-debuginfo = 0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17 ninja-build-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17 ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17.x86_64.rpm: ninja-build = 0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17 ninja-build(x86-64) = 0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: So there is 2 issues, the command for the tarball, and [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ninja-build/ninja-build-0-0.4.20120605git54553d3.fc18.src.rpm Switched to passing -p to install. Installed as /usr/bin/ninja-build (to avoid conflicts with the ninja package). URL for the tarball given.
Ok, the issue were corrected, so let's say "good to go" :)
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ninja-build Short Description: A small build system with a focus on speed Owners: mathstuf Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc17
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc18
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc16
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
ninja-build-1.0.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
(It is kind of a shame that the package could not just be called ninja and provide /usr/bin/ninja due to the existing ninja irc client package...)