Spec URL: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2.spec SRPM URL: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2-0.17.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: libgit2 is a portable, pure C implementation of the Git core methods provided as a re-entrant linkable library with a solid API, allowing you to write native speed custom Git applications in any language which supports C bindings. Fedora Account System Username: vpaan rpmlint: [veeti@veeti-pc result]$ rpmlint *.rpm libgit2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able libgit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able libgit2.src:39: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %cmake . -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot} \ libgit2.src:40: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build -DINSTALL_LIB=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \ libgit2.src:41: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build -DINSTALL_INC=%{buildroot}%{_includedir} \ libgit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able libgit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able libgit2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
* you should set minimal version supported of BR when known (ie: CMake >= 2.6) * use make instead of cmake wrappers as recommended by CMake guidelines. In the case of build, it allows to enable/disable quickly parallel builds * you don't need to specify CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX and CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE (default is debug and it will be stripped afterwards). As for INSTALL_LIB, it has been replaced by the more usual INCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR in master. https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/pull/823 You should request that upstream replaces INSTALL_INC by INCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR Note, that %cmake macro sets INCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR and LIB_INSTALL_DIR which are the standard de facto in CMake community.
Hi, Thanks for the comments. Here's a revised spec: Spec: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2-2/libgit2.spec SRPM: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2-2/libgit2-0.17.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Changelog: * Fri Oct 19 2012 Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen> - 0.17.0-2 - Use make for building and installation - Specify minimum CMake version - Remove useless OpenSSL build dependency - Move development documentation to the -devel package - Add code examples to the -devel package Just false spelling errors in rpmlint. --- > * you should set minimal version supported of BR when known (ie: CMake >= 2.6) Done > * use make instead of cmake wrappers as recommended by CMake guidelines. Done > * you don't need to specify CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX and CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE (default is debug and it will be stripped afterwards). Removed prefix since make and make install apparently works after all. Their CMakeLists forces -O0 if the build type is debug, so CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE is needed. > You should request that upstream replaces INSTALL_INC by INCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR I'll submit some patches to them to fix the path variables (and possibly the debug thing) later. They might not apply cleanly to 0.17.0 and the spec since their development branch is quite far ahead, though, so I think keeping INSTALL_LIB and INSTALL_INC for now is reasonable.
There are few bundled libraries: Not a problem: * zlib, regex (in deps tree): only used if system's version are unavailable. Requiring either packaging dependencies or Fesco approval: * joyent/http_parser (in deps tree): few changes, but it's unclear (to me) if it can work with upstream version which is actively maintained (https://github.com/joyent/http-parser) => check with upstream if they support upstream version, you can get a temporary permission if it can be fixed in upcoming versions. * libxdiff (in src tree): unmaintained by libxdiff upstream since 2008, there are few bugfixes and libgit2 specific changes in history. I assume that upstream is willing to maintain it as part of libgit2, so i consider that as a legit bundled library. You should file a ticket to Fesco on these before approval as explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Hi, Sorry for the late response. The libxdiff bundling seems to be somewhat complicated because the libgit2 developers tell me [1] that their copy of xdiff comes from git's source code [2] and not from libxdiff. Fedora's git package doesn't seem to have any exception for this "bundling". How do I proceed from here? I've written a patch to use to the system's instance of http-parser and I'll post an updated spec once this is clear. [1] https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/pull/1005 [2] https://github.com/git/git/tree/master/xdiff
This review will block in a near future the one for libgit2-glib. http://git.gnome.org/browse/libgit2-glib
adding myself to CC (I'll need this for Gitorious)
*** Bug 927310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Any news on this? 0.18.0 has been released already
i'll finish the review as soon as the bundled libraries issues will be fixed (upstreamed patch or bundling exceptions etc...)
/me notes that the urls for srpm and spec file are currently 404.
Sorry about that. I've updated the package for 0.18.0 and added a patch to fix the http-parser bundling. Spec: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/3/libgit2.spec SRPM: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/3/libgit2-0.18.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Now only the xdiff mess needs to be sorted out.
Another update to that removes now unnecessary flags from the %cmake macro and fixes the pkgconfig file. Spec: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/4/libgit2.spec SRPM: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/4/libgit2-0.18.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Okay. I've made a merged libxdiff that libgit2 and git can both use. Here is a patch for libgit2 0.18.0 to use it: http://spot.fedorapeople.org/libgit2-0.18.0-system-libxdiff.patch Here is an updated spec that uses it (and nukes src/xdiff): http://spot.fedorapeople.org/libgit2.spec libxdiff is waiting for review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969111
Thanks so much! I guess this is ready for review now. I recall trying to do a scratch build with Koji a while back and having it fail on the test suite because there's no internet connection, so I've disabled the online tests in this new spec: Spec: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/5/libgit2.spec SRPM: http://veetipaananen.fi/files/libgit2/5/libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc18.src.rpm
Great news, there should be no more blockers for this review. :)
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: %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. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)". 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/867959-libgit2/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?) [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Re-using old build in mock [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- libgit2.src: I: checking libgit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libgit2.src: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/archive/v0.18.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2.x86_64: I: checking libgit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libgit2.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2-devel.x86_64: I: checking libgit2-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2-devel.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgit2-devel-0.18.0/examples/test/test-rev-list.sh /bin/bash An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- Provides -------- Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/archive/v0.18.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88a6ef6f87905e0b574123b85c5746025a408c6169e754906e939acbca75ac5f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88a6ef6f87905e0b574123b85c5746025a408c6169e754906e939acbca75ac5f Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 867959 --no-build Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5463117 rpmlint: nothing relevant I hereby approve this package into Fedora Package Collection, you should wait that libxdiff is imported in branched releases or request a build override (rawhide should be fine). Do not close this ticket before depends are not done.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libgit2 Short Description: A C implementation of the Git core methods as a library Owners: vpaan Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Can you import and build it, please?
fyi in a few days they will release 0.19.0
Yes, sorry, I've been waiting for 0.19.0. I'll import and build if it doesn't come out in the next few days.
libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc19
libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgit2-0.18.0-4.fc18
libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc19
libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc18
libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libgit2-0.18.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libgit2 New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: vpaan