https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Bug ID: 1674278 Summary: Review Request: tty-clock - clock using libncurses Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: idf31@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/IDF31/tty-clock-spec/blob/master/tty-clock.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/IDF31/tty-clock-spec/blob/master/tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src... Description: A simple and cool clock made in ncurses. Fedora Account System Username: idf31
By the way this is my first package and I need a sponsor, thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Jaroslav Prokop jar.prokop@volny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jar.prokop@volny.cz
--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Prokop jar.prokop@volny.cz --- I'll do an unofficial review, just some basic points: * use macros, e.g. %{_bindir}/tty-clock and %{_mandir}/man1/ ...
* I don't think rm -rf buildroot is a way to go and I think there is macro for it
* Changelog is in an invalid format (or at least not missing a few things)
Please take a look at the guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ and also take a look at Domain Specific guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_domain_specific_...
I'd also recommend running rpmlint on your spec files and rpm packages before submitting
I wish you good luck and looking forward to your future work!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #2 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Jaroslav Prokop from comment #1)
I'll do an unofficial review, just some basic points:
use macros, e.g. %{_bindir}/tty-clock and %{_mandir}/man1/ ...
I don't think rm -rf buildroot is a way to go and I think there is macro
for it
- Changelog is in an invalid format (or at least not missing a few things)
Please take a look at the guidelines, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ and also take a look at Domain Specific guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ #_domain_specific_guidelines
I'd also recommend running rpmlint on your spec files and rpm packages before submitting
I wish you good luck and looking forward to your future work!
Hello, Thank you for your points. I've manually specified the path because tty-clock would install in /usr/local/bin/ and not /usr/bin/ (the value for ${_bindir}, same for the man pages. Reading the guidelines seem to forbid installation in /usr/local, so what can I do to make tty-clock install in /usr/bin without modifying the upstream source? Also I have removed "rm -rf buildroot" from the .spec.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #3 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- The source url is invalid
spectool -g tty-clock.spec Getting https://github.com/xorg62/tty-clock/releases/tag/v2.3.tar.gz to ./v2.3.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
Try using this instead
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
I also note the package installs to /usr/local, this is unacceptable. To fix use.
%install %make_install PREFIX=%{_prefix}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #4 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #3)
The source url is invalid
spectool -g tty-clock.spec Getting https://github.com/xorg62/tty-clock/releases/tag/v2.3.tar.gz to ./v2.3.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
Try using this instead
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
I also note the package installs to /usr/local, this is unacceptable. To fix use.
%install %make_install PREFIX=%{_prefix}
I already fixed the broken url link on the local file on my machine. Thank you for the "%make_install" fix, just what I was looking for!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #5 from idf31@protonmail.com --- I updated my .spec file to fix the broken url and the bad paths.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #6 from idf31@protonmail.com --- I fixed the wrong license short name and modified the changelog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #7 from idf31@protonmail.com --- I fixed a typo in the URL section.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #8 from idf31@protonmail.com --- I made Source0 less repetitive by using the url macro.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- You should link to raw versions of the files so that tools like fedora-review work.
* Remove lib from summary * BuildRequires cannot use %{?_isa} * Requires:ncurses is unnecessary (unless your executable is not linked to ncurses, which would be wrong anyway) * %changelog doesn't follow the prescribed format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #10 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #9)
You should link to raw versions of the files so that tools like fedora-review work.
- Remove lib from summary
- BuildRequires cannot use %{?_isa}
- Requires:ncurses is unnecessary (unless your executable is not linked to
ncurses, which would be wrong anyway)
- %changelog doesn't follow the prescribed format
Thank you for your review. I have removed the lib from summary I have removed %{?_isa} from BuildRequires I have removed Requires: ncurses I have modified the changelog according to the prescribed format The raw .spec is here: https://gitlab.com/IDF31/tty-clock-spec/raw/master/tty-clock.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #11 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- The current srpm fails to build in mock or koji.
$ koji build --scratch f30 tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm Uploading srpm: tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 14.34 KiB 38.07 KiB/sec Created task: 32774225 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32774225 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): free 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-19.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): free 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): free 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): free 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): free 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): free 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): free 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): free -> open (buildvm-s390x-05.s390.fedoraproject.org) 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): free -> open (buildvm-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): free -> open (buildhw-aarch64-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-17.ppc.fedoraproject.org) 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): free -> open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch x86_64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 6 open 0 done 1 failed 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-05.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 5 open 0 done 2 failed 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch i686), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 4 open 0 done 3 failed 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-17.ppc.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 3 open 0 done 4 failed 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildhw-aarch64-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch aarch64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 2 open 0 done 5 failed 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 1 open 0 done 6 failed 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): open (buildvm-19.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch x86_64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 0 open 0 done 7 failed
32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm) failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #12 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #13 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #11)
The current srpm fails to build in mock or koji.
$ koji build --scratch f30 tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm Uploading srpm: tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:00 14.34 KiB 38.07 KiB/sec Created task: 32774225 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32774225 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): free 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-19.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): free 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): free 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): free 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): free 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): free 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): free 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): free -> open (buildvm-s390x-05.s390.fedoraproject.org) 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): free -> open (buildvm-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): free -> open (buildhw-aarch64-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-17.ppc.fedoraproject.org) 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): free -> open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) 32774227 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, x86_64): open (buildvm-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch x86_64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 6 open 0 done 1 failed 32774231 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, s390x): open (buildvm-s390x-05.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 5 open 0 done 2 failed 32774230 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, i686): open (buildvm-05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch i686), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 4 open 0 done 3 failed 32774228 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-17.ppc.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 3 open 0 done 4 failed 32774229 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, aarch64): open (buildhw-aarch64-06.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch aarch64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 2 open 0 done 5 failed 32774232 buildArch (tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm, armv7hl): open (buildvm-armv7-24.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 1 open 0 done 6 failed 32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm): open (buildvm-19.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch x86_64), mock exited with status 1; see build.log for more information 0 free 0 open 0 done 7 failed
32774225 build (f30, tty-clock-2.3-1.fc29.src.rpm) failed
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #12)
building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Sorry for this, I think it was caused by a typo in the changelog. It should work now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #14 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com ---
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #12)
building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Sorry for this, I think it was caused by a typo in the changelog. It should work now.
Look at the error above again
BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found
So it's looking for cc
$ rpm -qf $(which cc) gcc-8.2.1-6.fc29.x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #15 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #14)
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #12)
building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Sorry for this, I think it was caused by a typo in the changelog. It should work now.
Look at the error above again
BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found
So it's looking for cc
$ rpm -qf $(which cc) gcc-8.2.1-6.fc29.x86_64
So if I set CC=gcc it would work?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #16 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- (In reply to idf31 from comment #15)
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #14)
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #12)
building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Sorry for this, I think it was caused by a typo in the changelog. It should work now.
Look at the error above again
BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found
So it's looking for cc
$ rpm -qf $(which cc) gcc-8.2.1-6.fc29.x86_64
So if I set CC=gcc it would work?
No, cc isn't included in the buildroot default packages. Add
BuildRequires: gcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #17 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #16)
(In reply to idf31 from comment #15)
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #14)
(In reply to leigh scott from comment #12)
building ttyclock.c cc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:26: tty-clock] Error 127 RPM build errors: BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) BUILDSTDERR: bogus date in %changelog: Mon Feb 12 2019 IDF idf31@protonmail.com - 0.1-2 BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.tVSsLr (%build) Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Sorry for this, I think it was caused by a typo in the changelog. It should work now.
Look at the error above again
BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: cc: command not found
So it's looking for cc
$ rpm -qf $(which cc) gcc-8.2.1-6.fc29.x86_64
So if I set CC=gcc it would work?
No, cc isn't included in the buildroot default packages. Add
BuildRequires: gcc
Ok I have added gcc to BuildRequires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- You should probably try Mock to build your package:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/wiki
This would help to catch the dependency issues early.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #19 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #18)
You should probably try Mock to build your package:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/wiki
This would help to catch the dependency issues early.
I've tested my srpm with mock now and it works. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #20 from leigh scott leigh123linux@googlemail.com --- Now you need to make it use the default fedora compiler flags, currently it has none
+ /usr/bin/make -O -j8 CC=gcc building ttyclock.c gcc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses) + exit 0
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
also your changelog is wrong still, each new build requires that you bump the release tag
Release: 3%{?dist}
As for the changelog version, it needs to match package version
Version: 2.3
* Wed Feb 13 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-4 - Fixed bogus date - Added gcc to BuildRequire
* Tue Feb 12 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-3 - Made Source0 less repetitive
* Mon Feb 11 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-2 - Fixed typo
* Sun Feb 10 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-1 - Initial Commit - Fixed broken URL - Fixed bad paths - Fixed wrong license name
I also recommend the you use my suggested source tag as it produces a correctly named tarball
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
then you can remove -n tty-clock-%{version} from %prep %autosetup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #21 from idf31@protonmail.com --- (In reply to leigh scott from comment #20)
Now you need to make it use the default fedora compiler flags, currently it has none
- /usr/bin/make -O -j8 CC=gcc
building ttyclock.c gcc -Wall -g $(pkg-config --cflags ncurses) ttyclock.c -o tty-clock $(pkg-config --libs ncurses)
- exit 0
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
also your changelog is wrong still, each new build requires that you bump the release tag
Release: 3%{?dist}
As for the changelog version, it needs to match package version
Version: 2.3
- Wed Feb 13 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-4
- Fixed bogus date
- Added gcc to BuildRequire
- Tue Feb 12 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-3
- Made Source0 less repetitive
- Mon Feb 11 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-2
- Fixed typo
- Sun Feb 10 2019 Dragos Iorga idf31@protonmail.com - 2.3-1
- Initial Commit
- Fixed broken URL
- Fixed bad paths
- Fixed wrong license name
I also recommend the you use my suggested source tag as it produces a correctly named tarball
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
then you can remove -n tty-clock-%{version} from %prep %autosetup
I've corrected my changelog and Source0 and I also added the %optflags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #22 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
- Use %set_build_flags to set Fedora build flags:
%build %set_build_flags %make_build
- Separate your changelog entries by a new line for readability
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- If no license file is included in the source package, there is no requirement for the packager to add one: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1.*
The only reason to use '*' as to match more than the single installed manual page is to be prepared for the automatic compression of manual pages to get changed or disabled. Currently, it's ".gz", but that may change also due to local customizations. With compression turned off, the package build would fail. Hence it would be more safer to write:
%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1*
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
--- Comment #24 from idf31@protonmail.com --- Sorry for my absence, I've been busy with school.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #23)
If no license file is included in the source package, there is no requirement for the packager to add one: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1.*
The only reason to use '*' as to match more than the single installed manual page is to be prepared for the automatic compression of manual pages to get changed or disabled. Currently, it's ".gz", but that may change also due to local customizations. With compression turned off, the package build would fail. Hence it would be more safer to write:
%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1*
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #22)
- You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files
%license LICENSE
- Use %set_build_flags to set Fedora build flags:
%build %set_build_flags %make_build
- Separate your changelog entries by a new line for readability
I've modified >%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1.* to >%{_mandir}/man1/tty-clock.1* and added >%set_build_flags Regarding the LICENSE file, the upstream doesn't have a license file in it's release source.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package is upproved.
You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tty-clock/review-tty- clock/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tty- clock [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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 from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: tty-clock-2.3-6.fc31.x86_64.rpm tty-clock-debuginfo-2.3-6.fc31.x86_64.rpm tty-clock-debugsource-2.3-6.fc31.x86_64.rpm tty-clock-2.3-6.fc31.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ |needinfo?(idf31@protonmail. | |com)
--- Comment #26 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review stalled
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org