Spec URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd.spec SRPM URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.2.2-1.el5.centos.src.rpm Description: The Grid File Access Library, GFAL2, provides a simple POSIX-like API for file operations in grid and cloud environments. Plug-ins are available to allow access via a variety of protocols. This package contains a plugin for the xrootd protocol (root://). Fedora Account System Username: adev This is a request to include the xrootd plugin for the GFAL 2.0 toolkit into fedora and EPEL. rpmlint : gfal2-plugin-xrootd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.2-1 ['0.2.2-1.el5.centos', '0.2.2-1.centos'] koji builds : Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5324521 F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5324573 EL6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5324569 EL5: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5324561 Regards, Adrien
Hi, Here is my informal review rpmlint output ============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST ==== [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] Package does not use a name that already exist. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [FAIL] Changelog in prescribed format. Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries related to upstream. [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified. [--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [FAIL] 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 must be included in %doc. It is manually installed under _docdir [OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [--] Development files must be in a -devel package. [--] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [--] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] No external kernel modules [OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [OK] No need for external bits [WARN] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should be removed. [--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] Package installs properly. SHOULD ====== [--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment [OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [OK] No PreReq [OK] %makeinstall is not used [OK] Timestamp is preserved [FAILED] Parallel make Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install [--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [--] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg [OK] The package builds in mock. [OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] The package functions as described. [--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts [--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Hi Alej, Thank you for the review I updated the src rpm from your comments : Spec URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd.spec SRPM URL: http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.2.2-2.el5.centos.src.rpm Problems : -> Only packaging related entries should appear. There are entries related to upstream. --> Done > gfal2-devel requires glib2-devel, so this BuildRequires should be removed. --> Corrected > It is manually installed under _docdir --> All files under _docdir are automatically marked as "documentation" like with the %doc macro. The usage of the doc macro is not needed in this case. http://www.redhat.com/archives/rpm-list/2001-September/msg00152.html > Missing make %{?_smp_mflags} in build, or those flags in install --> Done, add missing make entry Cheers, Adrien
Builds pass Fedora 20 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346575 EL6 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346589 EL5 build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5346601 rpmlint output ============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST ==== [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] Package does not use a name that already exist. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [OK] Changelog in prescribed format. [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified. [--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] 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 must be included in %doc. [OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [--] Development files must be in a -devel package. [--] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [--] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [--] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] No external kernel modules [OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [OK] No need for external bits [OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] Package installs properly. SHOULD ====== [--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment [OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream. [OK] No PreReq [OK] %makeinstall is not used [OK] Timestamp is preserved [OK] Parallel make [--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [--] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [--] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg [OK] The package builds in mock. [OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] The package functions as described. [--] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [--] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts [--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Checksums ========= http://grid-deployment.web.cern.ch/grid-deployment/dms/lcgutil/tar/gfal2-plugin-xrootd/gfal2-plugin-xrootd-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f609074eadb979aad71c810f56e0161a843cdbb7e0609c0c0b12a6c768ad030b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f609074eadb979aad71c810f56e0161a843cdbb7e0609c0c0b12a6c768ad030b Looks good to me.
Thank you Alej, New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gfal2-plugin-xrootd Short Description: Provide xrootd support for GFAL2 Owners: adev Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 el5 InitialCC: adev
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gfal2-plugin-xrootd New Branches: epel7 Owners: adev aalvarez New branch for EPEL7