[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #14 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #13) It's already packaged and submitted. I've given feedback during its updates-testing period, which was soon enough. You choose to ignore that feedback. Not nice, and dilettantish. :/ You simply could have replaced the build in the bodhi ticket. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210754#c10 Irrelevant. Either you've misunderstood this, or you refer to something different. Please explain. I'm referring to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries and the sentence Place all of the header files in the *-devel subpackage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #17 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Even if a bit unclean, you could omit the Obsoletes tag, since no build has been released yet, and this is a new package. The F22 update is on its way into stable, however, but F22 is not a final release. Less cruft in the repo metadata keeps them shorter = less data to work on by package resolvers. Same for superfluous packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(bugs.michael@gmx. |
|net)|
--- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Yes, of course!
diff --git a/spdlog.spec b/spdlog.spec
index 56095e1..45e0c59 100644
--- a/spdlog.spec
+++ b/spdlog.spec
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
Name: spdlog
Version:0
-Release:3.%{gitdate}git.%{shorttag}%{?dist}
+Release:4.%{gitdate}git%{shorttag}%{?dist}
Summary:Super fast C++ logging library
Group: Development/Libraries
License:MIT
@@ -21,8 +21,9 @@ logging library available at Github.
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
-Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libstdc++-devel
+Obsoletes: %{name} 0-4
+Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
@@ -39,14 +40,11 @@ find ./example -name '.gitignore' -exec rm {} \;
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
cp -pvR include/spdlog %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
-%files
-%doc README.md
-%license LICENSE
-
%files devel
+%license LICENSE
+%doc README.md
%doc example/
-%dir %{_includedir}/spdlog
-%{_includedir}/spdlog/*
+%{_includedir}/spdlog/
%changelog
* Mon Apr 20 2015 Daniel Kopecek dkope...@redhat.com -
0-3.20150410git.211ce99
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #18 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- Ah, ok great. Will do that for the json package too. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
Flags||needinfo?(bugs.michael@gmx.
||net)
--- Comment #15 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com ---
--
-%files
-%doc README.md
-%license LICENSE
-
%files devel
-%doc example/
+%doc README.md example
+%license LICENSE
%dir %{_includedir}/spdlog
%{_includedir}/spdlog/*
--
Is this the change you are requesting? Along with the provides and obsoletes?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
--- Comment #19 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com ---
diff --git a/spdlog.spec b/spdlog.spec
index 56095e1..f7a48ec 100644
--- a/spdlog.spec
+++ b/spdlog.spec
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
Name: spdlog
Version:0
-Release:3.%{gitdate}git.%{shorttag}%{?dist}
+Release:4.%{gitdate}git%{shorttag}%{?dist}
Summary:Super fast C++ logging library
Group: Development/Libraries
License:MIT
@@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ logging library available at Github.
Summary:Development files for %{name}
Group: Development/Libraries
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
-Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: libstdc++-devel
%description devel
-The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
-developing applications that use %{name}.
+The %{name}-devel package contains C++ header files for developing
+applications that use %{name}.
%prep
%setup -q -n %{user}-%{name}-%{shorttag}
@@ -39,16 +39,17 @@ find ./example -name '.gitignore' -exec rm {} \;
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
cp -pvR include/spdlog %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
-%files
-%doc README.md
-%license LICENSE
-
%files devel
-%doc example/
-%dir %{_includedir}/spdlog
-%{_includedir}/spdlog/*
+%doc README.md example/
+%license LICENSE
+%{_includedir}/spdlog/
%changelog
+* Thu Apr 30 2015 Daniel Kopecek dkope...@redhat.com -
0-4.20150410git211ce99
+- don't build the base package
+- remove a dot from the release tag
+- corrected -devel subpackage description
+
* Mon Apr 20 2015 Daniel Kopecek dkope...@redhat.com -
0-3.20150410git.211ce99
- use the -p option when copying the header files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2015-04-21 01:44:32 |2015-04-30 06:12:30 --- Comment #20 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- Fixed packages submitted. Closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- It's already packaged and submitted. I've given feedback during its updates-testing period, which was soon enough. You choose to ignore that feedback. Not nice, and dilettantish. :/ You simply could have replaced the build in the bodhi ticket. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210754#c10 Irrelevant. Either you've misunderstood this, or you refer to something different. spdlog builds a useless base package. It should build just spdlog-devel. That's what other similar packages do, too. Now, if you want to fix it, you would need to follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(plautrba@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #12 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Daniel Kopeček from comment #11) (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #10) spdlog-0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm One dot too much after git: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages It's already packaged and submitted. Given that: 1) the package passed the review 2) there are other packages that use this form of snapshot version syntax I don't think it an issue worth fixing. Does it break something? Setting needinfo on the reviewer to hear his opinion on this. For the case of consistence with packaging guidelines, you should probably fix it even though I don't think it's against the rules as it is. The fix should not break anything since for rpm it doesn't really matter: $ rpmdev-vercmp 0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20 0-3.20150410git211ce99.fc20 0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20 == 0-3.20150410git211ce99.fc20 I'd just change this with the next update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(plautrba@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment
#10)
spdlog-0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm
One dot too much after git:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
It's already packaged and submitted. Given that:
1) the package passed the review
2) there are other packages that use this form of snapshot version syntax
I don't think it an issue worth fixing. Does it break something? Setting
needinfo on the reviewer to hear his opinion on this.
%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
It makes no sense to create a base package which includes only these two
files. It will never be installed by anything other than the -devel package.
Note that you can omit the %files section for the base package in order to
build no base package.
The license file can be included in the -devel package instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210754#c10
%description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
developing applications that use %{name}.
That's a bit half-hearted. Assume it's called a header-only library, then
libraries and headers is one too much.
Ok, thanks, I'll fix this in the next update of the package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
spdlog-0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm
One dot too much after git:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE
It makes no sense to create a base package which includes only these two files.
It will never be installed by anything other than the -devel package.
Note that you can omit the %files section for the base package in order to
build no base package.
The license file can be included in the -devel package instead:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
%description devel
The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for
developing applications that use %{name}.
That's a bit half-hearted. Assume it's called a header-only library, then
libraries and headers is one too much.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-04-21 01:44:32 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||plaut...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com ---
40 cp -vR include/spdlog %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
You should use 'cp -p' or 'install -p' to preserve timestamps.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Petr Lautrbach from comment #2)
40 cp -vR include/spdlog %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
You should use 'cp -p' or 'install -p' to preserve timestamps.
Fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753
--- Comment #4 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- 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 LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
xX]: 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), BSD (2 clause), BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD
like), Unknown or generated. 12 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/plautrba/1210753-spdlog/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in spdlog-
devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #5 from Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Lautrbach from comment #4) Issues: === - 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 LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Given that spdlog contains /usr/share/licenses/spdlog/LICENSE this is false positive. I guess that if you provide fixed srpm with fixed spec file, I could approve it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/usbguard/spdlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/usbguard/spdlog-0-3.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: spdlog Short Description: Super fast C++ logging library Upstream URL: https://github.com/gabime/spdlog Owners: mildew Branches: f20 f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Petr Lautrbach plaut...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|plaut...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1210753] Review Request: spdlog - Super fast C++ logging library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210753 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Kopeček dkope...@redhat.com --- Updated. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/usbguard/spdlog.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dkopecek/usbguard/spdlog-0-2.20150410git.211ce99.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
