Spec URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab.spec SRPM URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab-0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: a tool and library to manipulate Cabinet archive Fedora Account System Username: elmarco
Paolo, since you are in CC, any idea about that?: # --enable-fast-install is needed to fix libtool "cannot relink `gcab'"...
I think it's ok to use --enable-fast-install.
in the meantime, gcab has a third release, updated spec: Spec URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab.spec SRPM URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab-0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
I'm taking the review of gcab after stepping down from the lcab proposal, as Marc-Andre Lureau has illustrated. I'll review that tomorrow (CET). Regards, --Simone [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896033
Some remarks: - Building is non-verbose. Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure to make it verbose. - Please append --disable-static to %configure. This avoids building the static libs and speeds up building. - Don't use %make_install. Instead use make DESTDIR=... install. %make_install is an ancient relic which should not be used in new packages. Furthermore: The rationale for --fast-install escapes me.
(In reply to comment #5) > Some remarks: > > - Building is non-verbose. > Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure to make it verbose. I don't see why this is necessary, but ok. Is there a policy about it? Imho, you can easily miss important gcc warnings in non-silence mode. > - Please append --disable-static to %configure. This avoids building the > static libs and speeds up building. ok, since we don't even ship it there (again, is there any policy?) > - Don't use %make_install. Instead use make DESTDIR=... install. > %make_install is an ancient relic which should not be used in new packages. Ah, ok. I suggest rpmbuild or fedpkg do this kind of checks and prints a warning... Also the emacs spec boilerplate is outdated then (emacs in f18) So fixing. > Furthermore: The rationale for --fast-install escapes me. Same here, that's why I tried to ask Paolo, who could be knowledgeable here :)
srpm and spec updated.
(In reply to comment #6) > > Furthermore: The rationale for --fast-install escapes me. > > Same here, that's why I tried to ask Paolo, who could be knowledgeable here > :) Hmm, I am puzzled, I removed it and now it works..
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Some remarks: > > > > - Building is non-verbose. > > Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure to make it verbose. > > I don't see why this is necessary, but ok. Silent rules suppress information which is necessary to evaluate whether a package is being built correctly (e.g. include paths and defines), information which is valuable to examine build.logs in case of build breakdowns. > Is there a policy about it? Yes, verbosity is a must. > Imho, > you can easily miss important gcc warnings in non-silence mode Correct, --disable-silent-rules enables building verbosity :-) > > - Please append --disable-static to %configure. This avoids building the > > static libs and speeds up building. > > ok, since we don't even ship it there (again, is there any policy?) No, this is common sense.
Hello, sorry for being late, I've been quite busy. Before I proceed with the review, I would like to have a couple of things fixed on top of those: 1) Please format the file in a consistent way, the top part is tabbed the other subpackages are not. 2) Be consistent with %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT; use one or the other. Please replace line 49 DESTDIR with %{buildroot}. 3) Change the subpackages names from libgcab-1.0* to something else (like libgcab-10*) as the "." character is not valid with package names [1]. 4) You can remove the comments after %configure. 5) Be consistent with the rpm version you want to build for. If you want to build for Fedora only please remove line 30; otherwise if you want to build also for el5 please add the missing tags in the spec file. I would be glad if you will build the package also for el5/el6 and I can offer myself as co-mantainer for those branches if you don't want the burden for those platform. To see the mising tags required for el5; run the following command: rpmdev-newspec -m -r 4.5 -o el5.spec 6) When updating the spec file for the review, please do not replace the original spec and rpm but bump the release tag. Thanks, --Simone [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
spec/srpm updated: - http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab.spec - http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab-0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #10) > I would be glad if you will build the package also for el5/el6 and I can > offer myself as co-mantainer for those branches if you don't want the burden > for those platform. > Your help is always appreciated. Thanks!
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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. [-]: %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. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [-]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [-]: 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. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [-]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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 Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Requires -------- gcab-debuginfo-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gcab-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcab-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgcab-1.0.so.0(LIBGCAB1_0.0)(64bit) libgcab-1.0.so.0(LIBGCAB1_0.2)(64bit) libgcab1(x86-64) = 0.3-2.fc18 libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gcab-debuginfo-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm: gcab-debuginfo = 0.3-2.fc18 gcab-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.3-2.fc18 gcab-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm: gcab = 0.3-2.fc18 gcab(x86-64) = 0.3-2.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gcab/0.3/gcab-0.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c52f2f8638ee8610c2253a960faf69c709e5854371a172f67e1d079d0ea9274 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c52f2f8638ee8610c2253a960faf69c709e5854371a172f67e1d079d0ea9274
Easy issues, after fixing these for me the package is good to go: =============== [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Just copy line 70 into the main gcab %files section. =============== [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Add the "-p" switch to the "cp" command at line 55. =============== Rpmlint Checking: gcab-debuginfo-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm gcab-0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm gcab-0.3-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm gcab.src:88: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. To add macros in changelog or comments you can use the double percentage, like: - Use %%{buildroot} consitantly. =============== Regarding tab/indentation; the spec file it's like it was before, can you please make all the lines with "Requires:", "Group:", etc. aligned like in lines 1-11? =============== Thanks! --Simone
spec/srpm updated: - http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab.spec - http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/gcab-0.3-3.fc18.src.rpm
Package approved! If you want help for the el5/6 branches I can ask for the commit permissions [1] when it has been processed. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gcab
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gcab Short Description: GObject Cabinet library and tool Owners: elmarco Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
All the tags that you added to the spec file were also for el5, otherwise they were not needed :) If you can add the branch for el5 I can build it. Thanks, --Simone
gcab-0.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gcab-0.3-3.fc18
I guess I can close that bug. Now your help would be welcome for bug 896011 ! Thanks a lot everyone.
I can work on bug #896011 but please reply to comment #18. Can you set again the flag fedora-cvs=? here and ask for the el5 branch? Otherwise delete all the added tags. Regards, --Simone
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gcab New Branches: el5 InitialCC: