Spec URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/babeltrace.spec SRPM URL: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/babeltrace-1.0.0-0.1.rc4.fc17.src.rpm Description: This project provides trace read and write libraries, as well as a trace converter. A plugin can be created for any trace format to allow its conversion to/from another trace format. The main format expected to be converted to/from is the Common Trace Format (CTF). See http://www.efficios.com/ctf. Fedora Account System Username: greenscientist
Hi just a quick note: The %defattr lines can be dropped. Best regards Erik Schillig (Ablu)
(In reply to comment #1) > Hi just a quick note: > > The %defattr lines can be dropped. > > Best regards > Erik Schillig (Ablu) Thanks, I forgot that one.
Shared lib calls exit. This should be reported upstream. Please make the build verbose. You can use the name macro once more in Source0, if you want. I'm not sure about the license. I wonder why include/babeltrace/list.h claims LGPLv2. That one test is GPLv2, which I find a little strange. Should that really make it GPL instead of LGPL? Only include the license files in the libs-subpackage. The descriptions should reflect the content of the actual packages. The clean section is obsolete. Can you use make %{?_smp_mflags}? The main package needs no ldconfig. Change *.1.gz to *.1* Requires must contain the isa macro: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Your main package should require the lib sub-package. Can you run the tests?
(In reply to comment #3) > Shared lib calls exit. This should be reported upstream. > See bug: http://bugs.lttng.org/issues/322 > > Can you run the tests? Right now, the make check does nothing. Working with upstream to fix that.
(In reply to comment #3) > > I'm not sure about the license. I wonder why include/babeltrace/list.h > claims LGPLv2. That one test is GPLv2, which I find a little strange. Should > that really make it GPL instead of LGPL? I don't understand this part, The file clearly state that it is LGPL (and it comes from GLIBC which is LGPL)
Updated package available at: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/babeltrace.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/babeltrace-1.0.0-0.1.rc5.fc17.src.rpm
Finally we have the 1.0 release, Updated spec and SRPM: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/babeltrace.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/babeltrace-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
A few things. You have the same file being owned my multiple packages. You only need to include the license file once if a package that it is provided by a parent package. Use %doc in the main package and then remove them from the sub-packages. As long as the license files are present for every possibly combination of installed packages. /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/gpl-2.0.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/mit-license.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/std-ext-lib.txt /usr/share/doc/babeltrace/LICENSE would become %doc LICENSE gpl-2.0.txt mit-license.txt ChangeLog in only the main babeltrace and libbabeltrace packages. You could then drop the /usr/share/doc/babeltrace directory altogether. You should also run the binary generated under tests in the %check section
ping
(In reply to comment #8) > A few things. You have the same file being owned my multiple packages. > > You only need to include the license file once if a package that it is > provided by a parent package. > > Use %doc in the main package and then remove them from the sub-packages. As > long as the license files are present for every possibly combination of > installed packages. > %doc LICENSE gpl-2.0.txt mit-license.txt ChangeLog > in only the main babeltrace and libbabeltrace packages. > You could then drop the /usr/share/doc/babeltrace directory altogether. From what I understand, I cannot do that, because these documentation files are installed by the make install of the upstream package. %doc seems to be used if you have non installed file that you want to add to the package. > You should also run the binary generated under tests in the %check section The make check entry is running the test normally.
Here's how you can do it (your tests are being built, but not run). --- babeltrace.spec 2012-10-29 22:04:15.000000000 +0100 +++ babeltrace_mod.spec 2013-01-15 07:38:44.571167794 +0100 @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ to/from another trace format. %build -%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name} --disable-static +%configure --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} --disable-static #Remove RPath sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1 %check make check +./tests/test-bitfield %install make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install @@ -63,22 +64,17 @@ rm -vf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la %postun -n lib%{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig %files +%doc ChangeLog LICENSE *.txt %{_bindir}/%{name}* -%dir %{_docdir}/%{name} -%{_docdir}/%{name}/ChangeLog - -%{_docdir}/%{name}/*.txt %{_mandir}/man1/*.1* %files -n lib%{name} +%doc ChangeLog LICENSE *.txt %{_libdir}/*.so.* -%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE - %files -n lib%{name}-devel %{_prefix}/include/* %{_libdir}/*.so -%{_docdir}/%{name}/LICENSE %changelog * Mon Oct 29 2012 Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau> - 1.0.0-1
Ok, thanks about this pointer on the doc, I was not aware of it. new version: SPEC: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SPECS/babeltrace.spec SRPM: http://www.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~ybrosseau/fedora/SRPMS/babeltrace-1.0.0-3.fc17.src.rpm
Good to go! Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [+] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [+]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n lib%{name}-devel, %package -n lib%{name} [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review- babeltrace/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 10 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: babeltrace Short Description: Trace Viewer and Converter, mainly for the Common Trace Format Owners: greenscientist Branches: f18 f17 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
babeltrace-1.0.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/babeltrace-1.0.0-3.fc18
babeltrace-1.0.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
babeltrace-1.0.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.