Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/eio-1.7.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment Input Output Library Fedora Account System Username:sundaram
@Rahul, Since eio and libeio are for different purposes, putting a Conflicts:libeio doesn't seem right. I will try to provide a patch based on the suggestion mentioned in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Library_Name_Conflicts
Here is the patch. http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/eio-remove-conflicts-1.patch Now we can install libeio and eio side by side. The shared library provided by eio is now installed in {libdir}/eio. There is one issue with this fix. When I wrote a small program to link to libeio, it linked to the shared library provided by eio. The proper solution IMO would be to patch the dependants of eio with the rpath of libeio.so.1. I am working on finding such a fix.
Created attachment 688391 [details] Patch that remove conflicts tag. Moves libeio shared libraries into a separate directory under libdir
@Rahul, spec file and srpm for your reference http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/eio.spec http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/eio-1.7.4-3.fc19.src.rpm Packages that depend on eio should pass -R %(libdir)/eio to libtool. I have modified emotion accordingly and attached a patch in that review request.
Spec URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/packages/eio-1.7.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment Input Output Library Fedora Account System Username:sundaram Copying the original spec/rpm for fedora-review purposes. Ignore this comment.
I would take out the specific version requirements out of the BR's and also the requires field. This is a recipe for trouble.
Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.6-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment Input Output Library Hi, please continue the review with the above spec and srpm. It is updated to version 1.7.6. Successful koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5482554 Dropped some unneeded BR's, moved the man page to the main package.
No response from reviewer, if someone wants to take over, please do so.
Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment Input Output Library [dan@Fedora x86_64]$ rpmlint eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [dan@Fedora x86_64]$ rpmlint eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm eio-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on eio/eio-libs/libeio 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [dan@Fedora x86_64]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.src.rpm eio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [dan@Fedora x86_64]$
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 1331200 bytes in 146 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Creating a docs subpackage isn't needed imo, because docdir size is only 600,8 kB. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.32 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.32 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.32 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/rave/891244-eio/results/eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm /home/rave/891244-eio/results/eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/rave/891244-eio/results/eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm', '/home/rave/891244-eio/results/eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm'] Fehler: Paket: eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64 (/eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64) Benötigt: eio-(x86-64) = 1.7.7-1.fc20 Sie können versuchen mit --skip-broken das Problem zu umgehen. You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
In order to get devel to install i had to do some mods. Please check the following spec file/srpm: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-2.fc20.src.rpm Description: Enlightenment Input Output Library
P.S. I asked Wolfgang to take over the review.
The Koji build is finished. Also the newest spec/srpms are here. Sorry: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio2.spec http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5821855 RPMLint: [dan@Fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint eio.spec eio.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %{name} eio.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{name} eio.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} eio.spec:50: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.spec:50: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.spec:51: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.spec:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} eio.spec:70: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. [dan@Fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/eio-1.7.7-2.fc20.src.rpm eio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii eio.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.src:45: W: macro-in-comment %{name} eio.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{name} eio.src:48: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.src:48: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} eio.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} eio.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir} eio.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} eio.src:70: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. [dan@Fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/eio-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [dan@Fedora SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/eio-devel-1.7.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [dan@Fedora SPECS]$
Updated: Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio2.spec http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-2.fc20.src.rpm
MUST: Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: eio2.spec should be eio.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/rave/891244-eio2/srpm/eio2.spec 2013-08-16 18:54:00.282102492 +0200 +++ /home/rave/891244-eio2/srpm-unpacked/eio.spec 2013-08-16 18:54:00.604105770 +0200 @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Extension of ecore for parallel io operations -License: LGPLv2+ +License: LGPLv2+ GPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries Url: http://enlightenment.org/ @@ -73,4 +73,5 @@ * Fri Aug 16 2013 Dan Mashal <dan.mashal> - 1.7.7-2 - Clean up the spec file some more as devel subpackage was not installing. +- Update license * Fri Aug 16 2013 Dan Mashal <dan.mashal> - 1.7.7-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint eio-devel eio eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii eio.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPLv2+ GPLv2+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Pls use License: LGPLv2+ GPLv2+
SHOULD: # copy documentation manually #echo "Copying HTML documentation" #mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} #/bin/cp -vr doc/html %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name} #echo "Copying MAN pages" #/bin/cp -vr doc/man/ %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/ # fix permissions #find %{buildroot}%{_docdir} -type f | xargs chmod 0644 #find %{buildroot}%{_docdir} -type d | xargs chmod 0755 # remove duplicates #%{_mandir}/man3/* #%{_datadir}/eio/examples Pls use '%%' for comments and sorry for my last comment PLs use License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
License update. Please try Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio2.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.src.rpm F19 Koji successful build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5823889 Rawhide: successful build: both the main package and devel package install [root@Fedora x86_64]# yum install ./eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, refresh-packagekit Examining ./eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm: eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 Marking ./eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm to be installed Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package eio.x86_64 0:1.7.7-4.fc20 will be installed --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: eio x86_64 1.7.7-4.fc20 /eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 107 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 1 Package Total size: 107 k Installed size: 107 k Is this ok [y/d/N]: y Downloading packages: Running transaction check Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded Running transaction Installing : eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 1/1 Verifying : eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 1/1 Installed: eio.x86_64 0:1.7.7-4.fc20 Complete! [root@Fedora x86_64]# yum install ./eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, refresh-packagekit Examining ./eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm: eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 Marking ./eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm to be installed Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package eio-devel.x86_64 0:1.7.7-4.fc20 will be installed --> Finished Dependency Resolution Dependencies Resolved ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: eio-devel x86_64 1.7.7-4.fc20 /eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 51 k Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 1 Package Total size: 51 k Installed size: 51 k Is this ok [y/d/N]: y Downloading packages: Running transaction check Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded Running transaction Installing : eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 1/1 Verifying : eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64 1/1 Installed: eio-devel.x86_64 0:1.7.7-4.fc20 Complete! [root@Fedora x86_64]#
Rawhide build here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5823895
D'oh sorry for the spam. Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.src.rpm
APPROVED! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rave/891244-eio/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 ------- Checking: eio-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm eio-devel-1.7.7-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii eio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.7.7-3 ['1.7.7-4.fc20', '1.7.7-4'] eio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint eio-devel eio eio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ecore -> core, encore, score eio.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) io -> oi, Io, ii eio.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.7.7-3 ['1.7.7-4.fc20', '1.7.7-4'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- eio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config eio(x86-64) libeio.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(ecore) pkgconfig(eet) pkgconfig(eina) eio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libecore.so.1()(64bit) libeet.so.1()(64bit) libeina.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- eio-devel: eio-devel eio-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(eio) eio: eio eio(x86-64) libeio.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.enlightenment.org/releases/eio-1.7.7.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 04147efce650866b545db1fe15ad43537c318062df42d9c998a0654913211044 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04147efce650866b545db1fe15ad43537c318062df42d9c998a0654913211044 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 891244
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: eio Short Description: Input Output Library for Englithenment Owners: vicodan sundaram spot Branches: f19
Git done (by process-git-requests).
eio-1.7.8-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/eio-1.7.8-1.fc19
ecore-1.7.8-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-14978/ecore-1.7.8-1.fc19
eio-1.7.8-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
ecore-1.7.8-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
eio-1.7.8-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
eio from eio provides libeio.so.1()(64bit) libeio from libeio provides libeio.so.1()(64bit) required by: eio-devel-1.7.8-1.fc20.x86_64 required by: emotion-1.7.8-8.fc20.x86_64 required by: libeio-devel-4.18-3.fc20.x86_64
@ Michael i don't wanna stop your mission and i'm full agree with you that this is a serious issue. During the review i never was notice about this issue by fedora-review-tool and personal i never installed enlightment on my system (not my DE). So i'm very sorry about that i don't mentioned this issue in the review. @ Dan I suggest that you notice upstream about this issue and we stop all reviews of enlightment until this SERIOUS issue is fixed by upstream.
The conflict issue is solved.