[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2016-11-14 07:59:41 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 Matěj Cepl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mc...@redhat.com 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #1 from jfch --- New src rpm is https://fedorapeople.org/~jfch/inih-36-2.el6.src.rpm Some review hints were integrated into 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #2 from jfch --- Successfuly built on koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15438634 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627
--- Comment #3 from Matěj Cepl ---
Preliminary review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[-]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[?]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Package should work even on EL-6
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in inih-
devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15438634
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded fr
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ignate...@redhat.com 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627
--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko ---
> gcc -shared -o libinih.so.0.%{version} -Wl,-soname,libinih.so.0 ini.o
missing %{__global_ldflags}
> Source0: https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/archive/r%{version}.tar.gz
Source0: %{url}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> %setup -q -n inih-r%{version}
%setup -q -n %{name}-r%{version}
> %clean
> rm -rf %{buildroot}
remove this
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
remove this
* Missing BuildRequires: gcc
* Group tag is not needed
* Add "-p" to all "install" invocations to preserve timestamp
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #5 from jfch --- modified to my best. relese is now 3 download is on fedorapeople.org/~jfch -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627
Igor Gnatenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko ---
Almost good.
--- inih.spec~2016-08-31 06:56:31.479004801 +0200
+++ inih.spec2016-08-31 07:04:53.338189890 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+%global sover 0
+
Name: inih
Version: 36
Release: 3%{?dist}
@@ -5,7 +7,7 @@
License: BSD
URL: https://github.com/benhoyt/inih
-Source0:
https://github.com/benhoyt/inih/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-r%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0: %{url}/archive/r%{version}/%{name}-r%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: gcc
@@ -35,32 +37,25 @@
%build
gcc -c -fPIC %{optflags} ini.c
-gcc -shared %{?__global_ldflags} -o libinih.so.0.%{version}
-Wl,-soname,libinih.so.0 ini.o
-
+gcc -shared %{?__global_ldflags} -o libinih.so.%{sover}.%{version}
-Wl,-soname,libinih.so.%{sover} ini.o
%install
-mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
-mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}
-install -p -m 644 ini.h %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/ini.h
-install -p -m 755 libinih.so* %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
-ln -s libinih.so.0.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0
-ln -s libinih.so.0.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libinih.so
-
+install -D -p -m 0644 ini.h %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/ini.h
+install -D -p -m 0755 lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version}
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version}
+ln -s lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version}
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}
+ln -s lib%{name}.so.%{sover}.%{version} %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
-
%files
-%doc README.md LICENSE.txt
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0.%{version}
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so.0
-
+%license LICENSE.txt
+%doc README.md
+%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.%{sover}*
%files devel
%{_includedir}/ini.h
-%{_libdir}/libinih.so
-
+%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so
%changelog
* Tue Aug 30 2016 Jan F. Chadima - 36-3
You can simplify spec as written above. though marking license by %license is
not optional.
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #7 from jfch --- Almost all done but %license tag causes local compilation fail. Looking at other rawhide srpms I didn't see it anywhere. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #9 from Igor Gnatenko --- > If the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, > then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be > included in %license. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627
--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko ---
(In reply to jfch from comment #7)
> Almost all done but %license tag causes local compilation fail.
> Looking at other rawhide srpms I didn't see it anywhere.
$ find -type f -name '*.spec' | xargs grep "^%license"
./hawkey/hawkey.spec:%license COPYING
./vte291/vte291.spec:%license COPYING
./python-iniparse/python-iniparse.spec:%license LICENSE LICENSE-PSF
./python-docker-squash/python-docker-squash.spec:%license LICENSE
./python-xunitparser/python-xunitparser.spec:%license LICENSE
[snip]
There is some guidelines about that. Though it fails only on EL6 I guess.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Previously_required_boilerplate
As a workaround you can add into beginning of spec:
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
%endif
and it will start working.
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #10 from jfch --- implemented %license now release is 5 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1371627] Review Request: inih - Simple INI file parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371627 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/inih -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
