Spec URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SPECS/libestr.spec SRPM URL: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SRPMS/libestr-0.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This library implements some helper functions to handle strings and easily escaping special characters etc. It is needed for rsyslog package. Fedora Account System Username: Mahaveer This is my second package for review and I need a sponsor. Here are rpmlint logs. [mdarade@mdarade rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/libestr-0.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/libestr-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/libestr-devel-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm libestr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i RPMS/x86_64/libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [mdarade@mdarade rpmbuild]$
Hi, this is just an informational review. 1. you don't need %clean section if you don't plan to support el5 2. you don't need BuildRoot if you don't plan to support el5 3. please don't mix %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. just pick one and use it consistently Milan ---- fedora-review -b 847817 ---- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: 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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/makerpm/847817-libestr/licensecheck.txt [ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) Note: Only applicable for EL-5 [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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 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. Issues: [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) Note: Only applicable for EL-5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#EL5 Rpmlint ------- Checking: libestr-devel-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm libestr-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm libestr-0.1.3-1.fc17.src.rpm libestr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libestr 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libestr-devel-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libestr(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc17 libestr.so.0()(64bit) libestr-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libestr-devel-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: libestr-devel = 0.1.3-1.fc17 libestr-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc17 pkgconfig(libestr) = 0.1.3 libestr-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: libestr = 0.1.3-1.fc17 libestr(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc17 libestr.so.0()(64bit) libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: libestr-debuginfo = 0.1.3-1.fc17 libestr-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.1.3-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://libestr.adiscon.com/files/download/libestr-0.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25a4a97942818ceacd8b47370d74a8e09dad2dfeb3c4534e76523e5408973919 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25a4a97942818ceacd8b47370d74a8e09dad2dfeb3c4534e76523e5408973919 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 847817 External plugins:
4. Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => you should use INSTALL='install -p'
Done. Here are links to updated SPEC & SRPM: http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SPECS/libestr.spec http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SRPMS/libestr-0.1.3-2.fc15.src.rpm Below are new rpmlint logs: [root@mdarade guest]# rpmlint -i libestr.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@mdarade guest]# rpmlint -i libestr-0.1.3-2.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [root@mdarade guest]# rpmlint -i libestr-*x86_64.rpm libestr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [root@mdarade guest]#
* Version 0.1.4 has been released. Not necessary to package it during review, just mentioning it. > %build > make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1 make ... for more verbose build output would be beneficial. Else you don't get to see the compiler flags etc. > make install -p DESTDIR=%{buildroot} As in the related reviews, there's a mistake in how -p is added here. Should become: make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > checking how to associate runtime and link libraries... printf %s\n That's a strange message in the "configure" output. Something's broken there. Unrelated to the review, just mentioning it.
I have worked on all the comments provided by Michael and here is a link to updated package. http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SPECS/libestr.spec http://siddharths.fedorapeople.org/mahaveer/SRPMS/libestr-0.1.3-3.fc15.src.rpm
rpmlint -v libestr-0.1.3-3.fc16.src.rpm libestr-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr- devel-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr-debuginfo-0.1.3-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm libestr.src: I: checking libestr.src: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr.src: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/files/download/libestr-0.1.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libestr.x86_64: I: checking libestr.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr-devel.x86_64: I: checking libestr-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libestr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libestr-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking libestr-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libestr.adiscon.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The warning above is OK. Tarball matches the upstream sources. The package complies with Fedora packaging and licensing guidelines. Note - the COPYING file states at the beginning that the libestr is packaged under the GNU GPL v2.1 or above but the license is GNU LGPL v2.1 or above as seen in the full text of the license and in the individual source files. Please notify upstream so they can fix the COPYING file appropriately. The package is ACCEPTED. I will sponsor you into packagers.
Updated COPYING. Link to updated files: http://mdarade.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libestr.spec http://mdarade.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libestr-0.1.3-4.fc15.src.rpm
I don't think the COPYING should be overwritten this way. You should ask upstream to fix it and have it corrected in the next upstream release. There is no problem in shipping the slightly incorrect COPYING meanwhile I think.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libestr Short Description: String handling essentials library Owners: mdarade Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libestr-0.1.3-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libestr-0.1.3-3.fc17
libestr-0.1.3-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
libestr-0.1.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libestr-0.1.3-3.fc18