[Bug 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422 |libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422 |gita9582d8.fc21 |gita9582d8.fc22 --- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422 |libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422 |gita9582d8.el7 |gita9582d8.fc21 --- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422 ||gita9582d8.el7 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc22 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.el7 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-04-25 02:17:50 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #52 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Thank you! -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #54 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #53 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libabigail Short Description: Set of ABI analysis tools and library Upstream URL: https://sourceware.org/libabigail/ Owners: sinnykumari dodji Branches: f21 f22 epel7 el6 InitialCC: sinnykumari dodji -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #51 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- As the required license text files are added, spec looks good now. APPROVED this package. Please proceed with step 8 from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor Be noted that when you add SCM request you don't need to specify devel/master/rawhide/f23 branch, it will be created by default for your 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #50 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the feedback and providing me sponsorship as a packager. I have made all changes mentioned in comment#46 . Now, latest package contains both license file COPYING-GPLV3 and COPYING-LGPLV3. Also COPYING file contains appropriate license text. Additionally, now source tar has been updated to latest git commit a9582d8 because license file being updated in latest commit. Latest spec and srpm are - SPEC - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec SRPM - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21.src.rpm Koji build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9535453 Checked fedora-review tool and rpmlint for error, it looks fine. Rpmlint --- Checking: libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21.x86_64.rpm libabigail-devel-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21.x86_64.rpm libabigail-doc-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21.x86_64.rpm libabigail-1.0-0.1.20150422gita9582d8.fc21.src.rpm libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidiff libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abicompat libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abilint libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidw libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) texinfo - tinfoil libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US texinfo - tinfoil libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht ml, ht-ml libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidiff - abiding libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abicompat - compatible libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidw - abide libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abilint - ability libabigail.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libabigail-1.0.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #47 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- 1) Note that .la files are libtool archives and are not related to static libs. It's just Fedora's guidelines where both .a and .la are covered in the same section. 2) Nothing in the guidelines suggests that. Packagers are free to put the scriptlet sections where they want. *If* there's something to consider related to scriptlet sections, avoid comments in the spec file below such sections. The comments would be included in the scriptlet body, which becomes a problem when the script is not executed via /bin/sh (e.g. the ldconfig scriptlets). %license COPYING-LGPLV3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade Please approach the upstream author about the second sentence in the section of the FAQ. The current comment in the file COPYING is just lame. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #48 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #47) 1) Note that .la files are libtool archives and are not related to static libs. It's just Fedora's guidelines where both .a and .la are covered in the same section. Yes you are right. I mixed the sentence when I wrote it. 2) Nothing in the guidelines suggests that. Packagers are free to put the scriptlet sections where they want. *If* there's something to consider related to scriptlet sections, avoid comments in the spec file below such sections. The comments would be included in the scriptlet body, which becomes a problem when the script is not executed via /bin/sh (e.g. the ldconfig scriptlets). I will still prefer this cosmetic change for easier readability. %license COPYING-LGPLV3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade Please approach the upstream author about the second sentence in the section of the FAQ. The current comment in the file COPYING is just lame. I suppose you mean here the effective license should be mentioned in COPYING right? -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #46 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Few changes I will suggest which is common practice
1) static library files generally removed in %install section so no need to
remove them using exclude in %files
We pass the --disable-static to %configure, this will not generate .a file
Then we need to add below %make_install following
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';'
2) you should write all %post %postun scriptlets before %files section
3) BuildRequires: python-sphinx-latex is not required as that package got
removed from repository now.
Rest looks fine. Submit new srpm and spec by increasing release to -4 and
adding changelog. I will approve this 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #49 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Let me quote: | If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include copies | of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as a set of | additional permissions on top of GPLv3. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #43 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Let's review your last submission of this package again. I assume your current package links are SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/master/spec/libabigail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #44 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #43) Let's review your last submission of this package again. I assume your current package links are SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/master/spec/ libabigail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/master/srpm/ libabigail-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm Yes, these are the latest spec and srpm. I haven't done any changes after last review done to it. If any thing still missing with this package, will be happy to fix it. I will check once again if it builds correctly with rawhide and will paste koji build link here. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #45 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Hi, Package builds successfully for rawhide in koji - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9494573 According to me package looks good. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #42 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Did another review of package laszip - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199296 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #40 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #39) Correct me if I am wrong but I see your total package submission is 2. Your informal package reviews are 2 which includes a single full package review yet. Yes, you are right. Did another review of package drumgizmo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356 . 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #41 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Done couple of more package reviews- 1. qmasterpassword - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193878 2. GBall - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173846 -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #39 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Correct me if I am wrong but I see your total package submission is 2. Your informal package reviews are 2 which includes a single full package review yet. I was waiting for more package reviews from you. I have already given what I needed and that is not too much I guess ;-) I will do your another packager 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #38 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Hi, Can I get sponsorship now in order to build this package for Fedora rawhide or still more works need to be done from my side? 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #37 from Sinny Kumari skum...@redhat.com --- I have added python-grabserial (BZ#1202265) package for review. Please provide feedback on that package as well. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Sinny Kumari skum...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||skum...@redhat.com --- Comment #36 from Sinny Kumari skum...@redhat.com --- Hi Parag, I was looking for another package which can be packaged for Fedora. I looked into http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist for help and also other resources to find out if something is unpackaged and can be relevant to add into Fedora. Package maintainers wishlist wiki page is quite outdated and it took some time to figure out relevant unpackaged project from it. Right now I am working on packaging Grabserial (http://elinux.org/Grabserial) project for adding it into Fedora repository. I will soon send package review for same. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #35 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Almost one month since above comment and I see only one package review done (rh#1162234). If I see more peer package reviews done, I will sponsor this 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #34 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Hi, I did full package review of nss-securepass package as per my understanding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162234#c15 . It would be great if someone can verify it and also add issues/suggestion if something I missed out. I am happy to improve my packaging skill in this way. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #31 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Parag and Michael for helping me with understanding minute details of
Fedora packaging.
In order to do complete Fedora-review, I am starting it with my own package and
would like to get feedback if I have done complete review of package correctly.
Once I get go ahead I will do complete review of other packages as well and
will post review link here for easy reference.
Fedora-review of libabigail package
---
* Fedora review shows one Failed item as [!]: Uses parallel make
%{?_smp_mflags} macro. But, libabigail spec file already uses this macro.
* I have done manual review as well. Rest looks good to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: libabigail-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.x86_64.rpm
libabigail-devel-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.x86_64.rpm
libabigail-doc-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.x86_64.rpm
libabigail-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm
libabigail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US applicatipon -
application, supplication, applicator
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidiff
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abicompat
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abilint
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidw
libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) texinfo - tinfoil
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US texinfo -
tinfoil
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht
ml, ht-ml
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidiff - abiding
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abicompat - compatible
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidw - abide
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abilint - ability
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
[Bug 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #32 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- fedora-review likely refers to the other make invocations: make html-doc pushd manuals make html-doc make man make info Whether any such extra make targets would benefit from parallel make jobs is up to the packager: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make The biggest gain usually is with the compilation step when it's dozens or hundreds of source files to be compiled. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #33 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
I generated html docs with and without parallel make. There is no difference in
time consumption. So, I will skip adding %{?_smp_mflags} flag in doc
generation. I hope rest reviews are fine. Now, working on complete review of
other 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #30 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Some hints: * When offering more than one package and/or a few reviews, you give your potential sponsor(s) more material to examine. That's a good thing. Some sponsors take over the reviewing of _all_ your initial packages. Some will watch/observe your activity in bugzilla anyway and may join with additional comments/guidance. * Many new packagers focus on making a package build on their local system and then stop there. So far, so good. Fedora's packaging guidelines are complex and really can be overwhelming. No doubt about that. They also address lots of issues, which can be considered minor only. If someone misses such details, it doesn't necessarily make a package BAD. However, it bears a risk that a packager (re)introduces packaging mistakes because of not looking up the guidelines. On the contrary, the guidelines are not complete either. There are lots of packaging pitfalls not covered by them. * Where to start? There's this page, which is like a checklist: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines Read it and try to review *your own* package(s) based on the list of MUST/SHOULD items. * The fedora-review tool automates several checks, especially some that can be important, such as checking licensing of source files. It is there to help you. Concentrate on any real errors it reports, also in the rpmlint section. Examine any warnings and ask about them, if there are questions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues * After approval of a package, it can get much more difficult depending on how familiar you are with the source code and how much support you get from the upstream authors. There are packagers, who manage to push a package through the review process, but who abandon the package as soon as the first problem reports come in via bugzilla and need activity, such as debugging, patching, forwarding things upstream. * And probably most important, you need to know where to search for information or where to ask for help. A good entry-point in the Wiki for packagers is this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #29 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- You can submit at any time more than one package but the first package to get reviewed/approved must be by a Sponsor packager and rest all can be by any other packager. See http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html page which can also show you that people do submit more than one package. So take your time, get familiar with this fedora review process, provide full quality reviews and get sponsorship. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #28 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- There is no rush to get this package into Fedora. I am sure that its very easy for Dodji to submit this package himself. Apparently, it was a bad idea on my part to think that it will be a nice to learn Fedora packaging, given that its preferred for only existing packagers to submit packages. Anyway, there is another thing I want to understand- 1. For the first package to be submitted, a sponsor is mandatory 2. For having a sponsor, more than one package to be submitted I'm a bit confused by this because 1 requires 2 and 2 requires 1 back. I do not understand how do I submit my second package while my first one is still incomplete. While I request some clarity on that, I will definitely try to do more peer-reviews. I have read the docs about the fedora-review tool, and that is what I am currently trying to understand and use. It is feeling quite overwhelming at first so I need more time on that. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #27 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Since this package has been submitted I am seeing some kind of rush to get this package ASAP in fedora. If that is the case why not let upstream developer Dodji submit this package himself? I see Dodji is already a packager. Also, I am not in support of providing the patches that fixes the packaging in the package review. And this is the first package from new contributor/packager. If you give readymade patch and contributor just uses it and provide it as an update how can we find if packager really understood what was packaging mistakes in previous submission? Sorry, Just based on one package submission and two incomplete peer-reviews, I am unable to sponsor this package. If you can contribute more packages or more full peer-reviews I may still sponsor this package. Sinny, I think you are still not familiar with fedora-review tool. If you are having any problem using it then ask here. Please go through also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||do...@redhat.com --- Comment #24 from Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com --- Quite frankly, with all (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #23) Sinny, Also, Can you submit few more packages also? That way we can know more about your packaging work and how well you are understanding packaging guidelines. Quite frankly, with all due respect, I find it almost ridiculous to ask for submitting several packages before getting the inclusion into Rawhide, while what the packager really is interested in is one particular package. I understand that you are after quality here, but I think you can see the motivation and the ability to grasp packaging concepts from potential Fedora contributors without alienating them with superfluous requests like this. I believe that is a skill mentors and sponsors should thrive to acquire too. I know I am not a sponsor myself but really, in the interest of the Fedora Project, I think we shouldn't keep asking folks to submit package B, C, D when they are only interested in package A. Just asking them to review other packages should be enough. And even in that case, it shouldn't be a hard pre-requisite, IMHO. Cheers. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- If you're unhappy with the sponsoring process, please start a thread on devel@ list and not here in bugzilla. The process is not perfect, but there are several pitfalls awaiting both the sponsors and the new contributors. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #26 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Hi, (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #23) Sinny, Also, Can you submit few more packages also? That way we can know more about your packaging work and how well you are understanding packaging guidelines. Yes I am interested in submitting other packages too which I have in mind but I would like to do that once my first package get added to Fedora rawhide and I have free time. From my first packaging experience I understand that it takes effort and time to work on one package and due to which I would like to dedicate my time in one good quality packaging rather than opening multiple packages for review request. I will be glad to do review of other packages and which I did too for two packages (nss-securepass and hypre). As per you suggestion I will do complete review of nss-securepass soon. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #23 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Sinny, Also, Can you submit few more packages also? That way we can know more about your packaging work and how well you are understanding packaging guidelines. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #20 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #18) I think there are some issues going on with daily rawhide compose. Maybe we can expect them to be fixed by Monday. I will further review this package then. I think latest python-sphinx is available in rawhide now. It would be great if further feedback is given to this package. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #21 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Hi, Another package review which I did is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162234#c5 for nss-securepass package. Also I helped in re-building plasma-mediacenter package for version 1.3.0 as seen from Changelog http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=541535 . -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #22 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Thanks for doing the review of nss-securepass but it looks to me not complete. You need to do full package reviews using fedora-review tool and mark all the items. Please read the packaging guidelines pages, understand them and provide your suggestions in the package reviews. About this package review, the last update in comment#17 looks good to get approved. I will now wait for your full package reviews where I can see you find packaging issues and provided fixes in your review comment. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #18 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- I think there are some issues going on with daily rawhide compose. Maybe we can expect them to be fixed by Monday. I will further review this package then. Meanwhile I am not sure if you have started doing package reviews. You need to do informal package reviews. Just based on one package submission and its package review you will not get sponsorship. When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment here so that I can look how you have reviewed those 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #19 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #18) I think there are some issues going on with daily rawhide compose. Maybe we can expect them to be fixed by Monday. I will further review this package then. Ok, sure Meanwhile I am not sure if you have started doing package reviews. You need to do informal package reviews. Just based on one package submission and its package review you will not get sponsorship. When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages. I did informal package review for hypre package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176595 (Comment 4 and 6). I will try reviewing few more packages as well and will update links here. 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- 1) Sinny, you are still not following correct %changelog guidelines. Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs page. I don't see since last release what you have changed. 2) Currently mock is failing for the package you submitted as the newer python-sphinx change has not yet published. The last rawhide published was on 23rd Jan. So, we need to wait till next rawhide is available that will add new package python-sphinx-latex. 3) I don't think info gets pulled automatically by yum. I removed info package from the system and tried to install locally built libabigail package and can see info package is not installed automatically. So, add those requires in -doc subpackage only. 4) One more think I found. Generally I have not seen people specifying full subpackage names where the name starts with the main package name. I don't think you need to follow the subpackage names like -n pkgname where all subpackages start with the main package name. For example for devel subpackage, you can just write as %package devel %description devel %files devel See http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch10s04.html -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #17 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Updated spec, srpm and koji build SPEC Url - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec SRPM Url - https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.3.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm Koji build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8718756 (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #16) 1) Sinny, you are still not following correct %changelog guidelines. Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs page. I don't see since last release what you have changed. Sorry about not using new changelog entry after each update in spec file. I was updating same changelog on every update because I don't wanted to have lot of changelog entry being added before package being actually build. Now, I am adding new entry for every spec file update. Also, will follow same for future. 2) Currently mock is failing for the package you submitted as the newer python-sphinx change has not yet published. The last rawhide published was on 23rd Jan. So, we need to wait till next rawhide is available that will add new package python-sphinx-latex. When can I expect next rawhide being available? 3) I don't think info gets pulled automatically by yum. I removed info package from the system and tried to install locally built libabigail package and can see info package is not installed automatically. So, add those requires in -doc subpackage only. I am using Fedora KDE and in my system when I tried to remove already installed info package, dependency was in such a way that it was trying to remove even systemd and emoval fails. Due to that I didn't add explicit requires as info for doc package. It may not be case for other desktop environment on which you tested. So, keeping in mind I have added info as explicit requires. 4) One more think I found. Generally I have not seen people specifying full subpackage names where the name starts with the main package name. I don't think you need to follow the subpackage names like -n pkgname where all subpackages start with the main package name. For example for devel subpackage, you can just write as 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #15 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
Updated spec file and also ran basic checks on generated packages. Updated spec
and rpms are:
SPEC url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec
SRPM url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.2.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm
Koji Build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8708846
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
Few more fixes required for above updated package.
1) When you prepare updated package its a good practice to do koji scratch
build and if its a successful build then check rpmlint output for all
generated rpm files. Or you can use fedora-review tool on your own updated
package.
Yes, rpmlint ran on generated package
= You need to fix the changelog version-release to
1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
Fixed
= Then the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warning can be fixed by adding
BuildRequires: dos2unix
and at the end of %install
dos2unix doc/manuals/html/_static/jquery.js
Added dos2unix
3) As per new guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ,
you need to use %license macro for license file instead of %doc
%license COPYING-LGPLV3
Fixed
4) Follow the texinfo guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
You have missing Requires lines and need to use preun (not postun)
Using preun instead of postun.
Not adding
Requires(post): info
Requires(preun): info
because this dependency should be handled by yum.
5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of
.git directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step like
tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
Thank you for telling about it. I really didn't notice it. Fixed.
6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
next will be 0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist} and add corresponding changes
information in %changelog
Updated Release number tag and %changelog information
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
= You need to fix the changelog version-release to
1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
The first git is redundant, just use:
%global checkout %{date}git%{git_revision}
Fixed
Probably easier to use git archvie... at this point. Something like:
# This tarball was constructed from pulling the source code of
# libabigail from its Git repository by doing:
#git clone git://sourceware.org/git/libabigail.git
#pushd libabigail
#git archive --prefix %%{name}-%%{version}/ -o
%%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{git_revision}
Yes, using it to generate archive and it works absolutely fine :)
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #10 from Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9) 2) I see you actually need libzip not gzip. You can add following BuildRequires: libzip to enable optional feature. Thank you for your attention to details, that is appreciated. However, the optional feature you are talking about is meant *not* to be activated in the current context. As the upstream maintainer of this package, I think it's a good thing to disable it. I even plan to disable the feature by default upstream (even when libzip is installed) in the future. So I think the BuildRequires: libzip should not be added. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #12 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
= You need to fix the changelog version-release to
1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
The first git is redundant, just use:
%global checkout %{date}git%{git_revision}
5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of
.git directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step like
tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
Probably easier to use git archvie... at this point. Something like:
# This tarball was constructed from pulling the source code of
# libabigail from its Git repository by doing:
#git clone git://sourceware.org/git/libabigail.git
#pushd libabigail
#git archive --prefix %%{name}-%%{version}/ -o %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz
%%{git_revision}
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #13 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback. I am making changes into spec file according to
your feedback. Have one question though (mentioned in inline comment)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
Few more fixes required for above updated package.
6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
next will be 0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist} and add corresponding changes
information in %changelog
Yes, I am aware of updating release number when any modification is done in
spec file. But, currently this package is under review and no non-scratch build
has been done so far. So, is it really needed now? Asking it because I couldn't
find answer to it in Fedora wiki.
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Thanks Dodji. Sinny, I see there is no need then to add BuildRequires: libzip -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #12)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
= You need to fix the changelog version-release to
1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
The first git is redundant, just use:
%global checkout %{date}git%{git_revision}
You are right. My eyes missed that.
5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of
.git directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step
like
tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
Probably easier to use git archvie... at this point. Something like:
# This tarball was constructed from pulling the source code of
# libabigail from its Git repository by doing:
#git clone git://sourceware.org/git/libabigail.git
#pushd libabigail
#git archive --prefix %%{name}-%%{version}/ -o
%%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{git_revision}
Not tested but looks this can also work fine.
(In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #13)
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback. I am making changes into spec file according to
your feedback. Have one question though (mentioned in inline comment)
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
Few more fixes required for above updated package.
6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so
next will be 0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist} and add corresponding changes
information in %changelog
Yes, I am aware of updating release number when any modification is done in
spec file. But, currently this package is under review and no non-scratch
build has been done so far. So, is it really needed now? Asking it because I
couldn't find answer to it in Fedora wiki.
Yes you do need to update release number. Many new people asks same question
but we need to track how the package got updated since its initial submission.
This also helps other people to track how this package is reviewed and
approved.
I generally don't ask people if its a minor update but in your case there are
many changes. Just go through already done package reviews in bugzilla and you
will find people did update release number everytime they submitted new
changes. You may want to check reviews that got progressed since its submission
- http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html or
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/REVIEW.html
Also, this is needed in case when new update fails to build/work we can go to
previous changes and find the issues in new update.
I too can't find any reference for this in fedora wiki.
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com ---
Few more fixes required for above updated package.
1) When you prepare updated package its a good practice to do koji scratch
build and if its a successful build then check rpmlint output for all generated
rpm files. Or you can use fedora-review tool on your own updated package.
rpmlint output on all generated rpm files
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidiff - abiding
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abicompat - compatible
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abidw - abide
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abilint - ability
libabigail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US applicatipon -
application, supplication, applicator
libabigail.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libabigail-1.0.tar.gz
libabigail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US applicatipon -
application, supplication, applicator
libabigail.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-0.1.git.63c81f0
['1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0.fc22', '1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0']
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidiff
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abicompat
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abilint
libabigail.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abidw
libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libabigail-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) texinfo - tinfoil
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) html - HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US texinfo -
tinfoil
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html - HTML, ht
ml, ht-ml
libabigail-doc.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libabigail-doc/_static/jquery.js
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
= You need to fix the changelog version-release to
1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0
= Then the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warning can be fixed by adding
BuildRequires: dos2unix
and at the end of %install
dos2unix doc/manuals/html/_static/jquery.js
Rest can be ignored.
2) I see you actually need libzip not gzip. You can add following
BuildRequires: libzip
to enable optional feature.
3) As per new guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text , you
need to use %license macro for license file instead of %doc
%license COPYING-LGPLV3
4) Follow the texinfo guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
You have missing Requires lines and need to use preun (not postun)
5) I had a look at source archive and it contains approximately 2.9MB of .git
directory which we don't need. So change the source generation step like
tar -cvzf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version} --exclude .git
and generate new tarball, use it and submit new package for further review.
6) Everytime you update the spec file, increase the release number tag (so next
will be 0.2.%{checkout}%{?dist} and add corresponding changes information in
%changelog
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #8 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com ---
Hi,
I Updated spec file according to feedback provided by Michael. Updated links
are:
Spec Url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec
SRPM Url -
https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.1.git.20150114git63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm
Koji Build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8660213
Fedora's packaging guidelines want you to include the checkout date her as a
prefix:
Done
BuildRequires: gzip
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Removed, my mistake that I provided gzip as explicit BuidRequires
Requires: elfutils
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
TLDR: Add a comment that gives the rationale why this explicit Requires are
necessary.
Yes, there is no need of elfutils in Require section. So, removed.
%package -n libabigail-devel
Provides: libabigail-devel = %{version}-%{release}
That's a very unusual explicit Provides you should delete. It's the same
that's added by rpmbuild automatically! ;)
%package -n libabigail-doc
Provides: libabigail-doc = %{version}-%{release}
Thank you for pointing it out. Removed :)
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Please keep Documentation packages completely separate from any such
dependencies, so they can be installed without pulling in stuff that's not
needed. Unless the documentation can only be displayed with a program
included in a separate package. That's not true for HTML files, manual pages
and Info pages.
Yes, there is no need to keep main package as dependency for libabigail-doc
package. Removed.
Not shipping the section 7 manual pages in the same package as the tools
themselves is a packaging bug.
Keeping man7 files in doc package in order to keep main package size minimal.
It will be useful in case of running libabigail on smaller boxes.
Blocker: The license files are not included! They must be included in the
base package (and preferably also in the separate -doc package to be
complete):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing
Added available License file in libabigail main and doc package.
%check
The section is executed _after_ %install, so it should be placed below
%install in the spec file. (Btw, this is especially true, if the test-suite
were to be run on %buildroot contents.)
Moved %check after %install
%{_infodir}/abigail.info.gz
Not a blocker, but just like manual files are included with a '*' wildcard
suffix instead of .gz, doing that also for Info files would be more
flexible (with regard to disabling/customising the compression technique
used by the build system).
Done
%post -n libabigail-doc
/sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n libabigail-doc
/sbin/ldconfig
Why is ldconfig run here?
Sorry, it was my mistake. Not needed as doc package doesn't install any shared
library.
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3547/8623547/build.log
Build output is non-verbose. You cannot see whether Fedora's global
compiler/linker flags are used, and you cannot easily verify what options
are used during compilation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Try passing V=1 to make, or configure with --disable-silent-rules, or look
for extra build options, or patch the Makefile(s) if necessary.
Added --disable-silent-rules option in %configure.
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.mich...@gmx.net
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%global checkout git.%{git_revision}
Release: 0.1.%{checkout}%{?dist}
Fedora's packaging guidelines want you to include the checkout date her as a
prefix:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
BuildRequires: gzip
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
Requires: elfutils
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
TLDR: Add a comment that gives the rationale why this explicit Requires are
necessary.
%package -n libabigail-devel
Provides: libabigail-devel = %{version}-%{release}
That's a very unusual explicit Provides you should delete. It's the same that's
added by rpmbuild automatically! ;)
%package -n libabigail-doc
Provides: libabigail-doc = %{version}-%{release}
Same here.
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Please keep Documentation packages completely separate from any such
dependencies, so they can be installed without pulling in stuff that's not
needed. Unless the documentation can only be displayed with a program included
in a separate package. That's not true for HTML files, manual pages and Info
pages.
Not shipping the section 7 manual pages in the same package as the tools
themselves is a packaging bug.
Blocker: The license files are not included! They must be included in the base
package (and preferably also in the separate -doc package to be complete):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing
%check
The section is executed _after_ %install, so it should be placed below %install
in the spec file. (Btw, this is especially true, if the test-suite were to be
run on %buildroot contents.)
%{_infodir}/abigail.info.gz
Not a blocker, but just like manual files are included with a '*' wildcard
suffix instead of .gz, doing that also for Info files would be more flexible
(with regard to disabling/customising the compression technique used by the
build system).
%post -n libabigail-doc
/sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n libabigail-doc
/sbin/ldconfig
Why is ldconfig run here?
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3547/8623547/build.log
Build output is non-verbose. You cannot see whether Fedora's global
compiler/linker flags are used, and you cannot easily verify what options are
used during compilation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
Try passing V=1 to make, or configure with --disable-silent-rules, or look for
extra build options, or patch the Makefile(s) if necessary.
= Some more work on this package is needed.
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #1) Ok, pardon my ignorance but as you work at RedHat, do you actually require sponsoring to be a Fedora packager or are you already sponsored? Every new package contributor need to get sponsored in packager group irrespective of for which employer you are working. We need to make sure these new contributors knows rpm packaging that follows Fedora packaging guidelines. -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
--- Comment #5 from Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org ---
Created attachment 980401
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=980401action=edit
First iteration on proposed changes to the libabigail package
Hey Sinny,
As Richard Shaw said in his comment, this looks like great work.
Thank you for that!
I also agree with his comments and I am attaching this patch that
addresses his comments. Namely:
1. It's preference, not required, but it's a good idea to list your
BuildRequires on separate lines. About the only time I list
multiple is if they are closely related (autoconf, automake) or
let's say you have something that manipulates images then I could
see having all the image devel libraries on one line.
I have updated the .spec file in the patch to address this.
2. Requires from the devel package should be arch specific, i.e.:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I have made this change too.
3. In install since your not doing anything out of the ordinary you
could use the %make_install macro.
I have made this change. And I have also added a call to the
'install-man-and-info-doc' target of the Makefile to install the man
pages and info doc.
4. In %files unless your using non-default permissions you don't need
%defattr.
Fixed.
5. Typically %doc is right under %files. It's not wrong to
do so but it's unusual.
Fixed.
I am also addressing the comments from Rahul Sundaram:
Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included
Removed.
Do you need autoreconf -i?
If the source code tarball was made using make dist, then you are
right, autoreconf -i is not needed. But in the changes I am
proposing here, I am falling back to just using tar to build the
source tarball from the git snapshot, so that the person who is
actually constructing the tarball doesn't need to have the autotools
installed just to re-construct the tarball. And in that case, yes the
autoreconf -i is needed. So I am keeping it in my proposed changes.
In addition to this, I am proposing the changes below to address some
more nits:
* As this packages a pre-release snapshot from git, specify the git
commit in the Release TAG, as per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages.
* In the comments of the Source0 tag, give more details about how to
get that specific git commit from the upstream git repository.
Also, just use a plain 'tar' command to construct the tarball,
rather than requiring that the user runs autoreconf -i and then
configure and then make dist. I think it's nice to ease the work of
whoever is going to be getting that source tarball.
* Be more factual in the %description of libabigail: introduce the
actual command line tools that the package contains, a bit like what
the diffutils package does. The libabigail tools are not unliked
the diffutils tools, but for the ABI of shared libraries; that is
why I think it's interesting to take their wording as an example.
Also, do not introduce the library itself in the %description of the
libabigail package, because the library is not what the end-user
installing the libabigail package would be actually *using*. I'd
rather introduce the library in the %description of the
*libabigail-devel* package.
* Rename the libabigail-man sub-package into libabigail-doc and move
all the documentation there, as there is quite a lot of
documentation now (man, texinfo, apidoc, html manual). This is as
per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
which says:
if there's a lot of documentation, consider putting it into a
subpackage. In this case, it is recommended to use *-doc as the
subpackage name.
* Make sure the zip-archive feature is disabled as it can be
automatically turned on if the libzip library is present at build
time; and this feature is going to be deprecated in upstream.
* Add texinfo documentation generation at build time.
* Specifically install man page and texinfo documentation using the
new upstream install-man-and-info-doc make target. For the
texinfo pages, add post (un)install scriptlets to update the global
texinfo directory accordingly.
* If make check fails, cat tests/test-suite.log so that we can see
what the details of the failings are in the output log of the build.
This is extremely handy to spot and fix causes of test suite errors
that happen when the package is built remotely on koji.
* Explicitly list the binary tools and libraries that are included in
the package so that the person who updates the package can see when
new upstream binaries are added and then choose to add them to the
package or not.
--
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
[Bug 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Hi Sinny, We have this process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored into the packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some (4-5) full detailed package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging guidelines. Please go through the following links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines 3) To find the packages already submitted for review, check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines is useful while doing package reviews. 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention This is un-official review of the package. at top of your review comment. Good to review packages listed in http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html If you got any questions please ask :) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261 --- Comment #6 from Sinny Kumari ksi...@gmail.com --- Thanks everyone for feedback. Since most of changes are covered by Dodji in his patch (attachment under comments 5), I have updated spec file accordingly. Updated spec and srpm are available at: Spec URL: https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/spec/libabigail.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/sinnykumari/libabigail-package/raw/master/srpm/libabigail-1.0-0.1.git.63c81f0.fc21.src.rpm Koji build link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8623543 Meanwhile, I will also try reviewing other 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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||methe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com ---
Hi
In addition to the above comments, I have one more suggestion. I see
%{_libdir}/libabigail.la
Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included. Packages using libtool
will install these by default even if you configure with --disable-static, so
they may need to be removed before packaging.
Do you need autoreconf -i?
--
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 1182261] Review Request: libabigail - Tool for constructing, manipulating, serializing and de-serializing ABI-relevant artifacts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261
Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com ---
Ok, pardon my ignorance but as you work at RedHat, do you actually require
sponsoring to be a Fedora packager or are you already sponsored?
Quick spec file review:
No major problems jump out at me so very good!
Minor nits:
1. It's preference, not required, but it's a good idea to list your
BuildRequires on separate lines. About the only time I list multiple is if they
are closely related (autoconf, automake) or let's say you have something that
manipulates images then I could see having all the image devel libraries on one
line.
2. Requires from the devel package should be arch specific, i.e.:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
to:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
3. In install since your not doing anything out of the ordinary you could use
the %make_install macro.
4. In %files unless your using non-default permissions you don't need %defattr.
5. Typically %doc is right under %files. It's not wrong to do so but it's
unusual.
--
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
