[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