Hide Forgot
This is a deprecated package of which I would like to take ownership. The previous maintainer stopped supporting it, but upstream is active. Spec URL: https://aalvarez.web.cern.ch/aalvarez/fedora/libmetalink.spec SRPM URL: https://aalvarez.web.cern.ch/aalvarez/fedora/libmetalink-0.1.2-1.src.rpm Description: ------------ libmetalink is a Metalink C library. It adds Metalink functionality such as parsing Metalink XML files to programs written in C. Fedora Account System Username: aalvarez rpmlint output -------------- libmetalink.src:84: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} libmetalink.src:84: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release} libmetalink.src:87: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_docdir} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Build on EPEL6 -------------- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5379069 Build on F20 ------------ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5379039
> rpmlint output Fix the issues found by rpmlint, please. Also run rpmlint on the _built_ rpms, not just the src.rpm. > Summary: A Metalink C library In Anaconda and package tools, which display these summaries, it looks better (and more concise) when omitting these leading articles: Summary: Metalink library written in C https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Examples_of_good_package_summaries > BuildRoot: ... > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %clean > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > %defattr(-,root,root,-) Nowdays these are not necessary anymore. Unless you want to build with the same spec file for EL5. Therefore it's better to remove what's not needed anymore and add a comment what shall be kept: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > %package devel > Summary: A Metalink C library devel package More clear (as in many -devel packages): Summary: Files needed for developing with %{name} > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > Requires: pkgconfig Not needed. Automatically added for the executable _and_ the .pc file's Provides. > %package docs https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation Probably not worthwhile, but you could see whether to replace this -docs package with a -doc package (dead.package file says: retired on 2012-02-06). > Group: Development/Libraries Rather "Group: Documentation". > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Independent documentation -doc packages typically don't require the base package. It should be possible to install documentation without having to install a program and all its dependencies. > %files devel > %{_includedir}/metalink/ > %{_includedir}/metalink/metalink*.h Duplicate file entries. The first includes the directory *and* everything in it. The second includes the header files once more. Choose either one: %{_includedir}/metalink/ Or: %dir %{_includedir}/metalink/ %{_includedir}/metalink/metalink*.h As a packaging hint: It can be helpful to spell out the specific file names of header files, so if one file gets renamed during a version upgrade, the build would fail and serve as an early-warning-system.
Here is the new version. By the way, I do want to release in EPEL5. I attach this time a build in el5-candidate. Spec URL: https://aalvarez.web.cern.ch/aalvarez/fedora/libmetalink.spec SRPM URL: https://aalvarez.web.cern.ch/aalvarez/fedora/libmetalink-0.1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm rpmlint output -------------- $rpmlint ./libmetalink-0.1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm libmetalink.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metalink -> Meta link, Meta-link, Metal ink 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ./libmetalink-0.1.2-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libmetalink.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metalink -> Meta link, Meta-link, Metal ink Build on F20 ------------ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5486463 Build on EPEL6 -------------- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5486469 Build on EPEL5 -------------- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5486487
* The changes are fine, except that I just had a final look at the new -doc package and noticed it contains only 15 manual pages with a total package size of 12092. As such I think it's not justified to create a separate -doc package. I recommend that you include the manual pages in the -devel package where they belong (manuals section 3). No Obsoletes are needed, since the -doc package hasn't existed before. The old packages included the man pages in the base package (wrongly): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8400 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines | | MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. | (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, | but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). The %changelog doesn't tell _why_ you've moved the man pages into a subpackage. In case a future version will include "large" documentation, it would still be possible to introduce a -doc package. * EPEL5: %defattr is not needed there either, because RPM is new enough. * You're free to handle the doc changes within pkg git. APPROVED
Btw, "yum search cunit" is successful meanwhile, and the configure script searches for it. Consider looking into it, too.
BuildRequires: CUnit-devel %check make check
CUnit - A unit testing framework for C - Version 2.1-2 http://cunit.sourceforge.net/ Suite: libmetalink_TestSuite Test: test of metalink_list ...passed Test: test of metalink_pctrl_file_transaction ...passed Test: test of metalink_pctrl_resource_transaction ...passed Test: test of metalink_pctrl_checksum_transaction ...passed Test: test of metalink_pctrl_piece_hash_transaction ...passed Test: test of metalink_pctrl_chunk_checksum_transaction ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_file ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_fp ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_fd ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_memory ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_update ...passed Test: test of metalink_parser_update_fail ...passed Test: test of metalink_check_safe_path ...passed Test: test of metalink_get_version ...passed Test: test of metalink_parse_file_v4 ...passed Run Summary: Type Total Ran Passed Failed Inactive suites 1 1 n/a 0 0 tests 15 15 15 0 0 asserts 489 489 489 0 n/a Elapsed time = 0.000 seconds PASS: metalinktest ============= 1 test passed =============
I will have a look at those, thanks! Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libmetalink New Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6 Owners: aalvarez
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Sorry. I assumed master would be adopted too, but it hasn't been. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libmetalink New Branches: master Owners: aalvarez
I think you need to file an unblock request at Fedora Release Engineering and point at this re-review: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/
I have done that too, but I was surprised I can push to all branches except master. Well, and in the database devel is the only one still marked as orphan and deprecated. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/libmetalink For the record: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5635
You need to take ownership of it in pkgdb.
In pkgdb mortals cannot take ownership of "deprecated" packages. An admin needs to assist. $ koji list-pkgs --package libmetalink --show-blocked Package Tag Extra Arches Owner ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- --------------- libmetalink dist-f9 ant libmetalink dist-5E-epel aalvarez libmetalink f12-alpha ant libmetalink f9-cutoff ant libmetalink f9-build-cutoff ant libmetalink f12-beta ant libmetalink f12-final ant libmetalink dist-6E-epel aalvarez libmetalink dist-f15 orphan libmetalink f16 orphan libmetalink f17 aalvarez [BLOCKED] libmetalink f17-final orphan [BLOCKED] libmetalink f18-Alpha orphan [BLOCKED] libmetalink dist-f15-eol orphan libmetalink f18-final orphan [BLOCKED]
Alejandro, you can "Take ownership" in pkgdb now thanks to Kevin Fenzi.
Alejandro, you now own the devel branch.
Great, thanks!