Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Summary: Review Request: serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Product: Fedora Version: 16 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones.it@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
serd - A lightweight C library for RDF syntax
This package is used as part of the LV2 Linux audio plugin standard.
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec
From the description:
is a lightweight C library for RDF syntax which supports reading and writing Turtle and NTriples.
Serd is not intended to be a swiss-army knife of RDF syntax, but rather is suited to resource limited or performance critical applications (e.g. converting many gigabytes of NTriples to Turtle), or situations where a simple reader/writer with minimal dependencies is ideal (e.g. in LV2 implementations or embedded applications).is a library to make the use of LV2 plugins as simple as possible for applications.
fedora16:~/rpmbuild/SPECS/lv2-other $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/serd* serd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs serd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary serdi 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Gregor Tätzner gregor@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gregor@freenet.de AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gregor@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Gregor Tätzner gregor@freenet.de 2012-01-14 06:18:50 EST --- I'll review serd this weekend.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #2 from Gregor Tätzner gregor@freenet.de 2012-01-14 06:41:10 EST --- Pre-review:
-plz reformat the spec file
rpmlint serd-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm serd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US swiss -> swiz, Swiss, swigs serd.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 3) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
-the license of serd is ICS (http://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license) and not GPL 2
-otherwise I can't see any issues, great work :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-01-14 07:03:56 EST --- Thanks Greg, changed as requested
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-2.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2012-01-14 07:07:18 EST --- I suggest to move the section 1 manpage (serdi.1*) to the base package as it documents the command-line utility.
In order to prevent adding unwanted files, please be a bit more specific in %files, e.g.: %{_mandir}/man1/* => %{_mandir}/man1/serdi.1* %{_mandir}/man3/* => %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-01-14 07:57:25 EST --- Thanks Greg, should have caught that one, was staring at me in rpmlint output of the binary package "serd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary serdi"
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd-0.5.0-3.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2/serd.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Gregor Tätzner gregor@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Gregor Tätzner gregor@freenet.de 2012-01-14 08:52:01 EST --- Heh, comment 4 wasn't me ;) However:
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/greg/projects/Review/781685/serd-0.5.0.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : 33688d9ad0775647124d1e86dc4cf387 MD5SUM upstream package : 33688d9ad0775647124d1e86dc4cf387
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins:
== APPROVED ==
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-01-14 11:07:47 EST --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: serd Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-15 17:25:59 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 05:27:10 EST --- serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/serd-0.5.0-3.fc16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-01-16 16:26:13 EST --- Package serd-0.5.0-3.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing serd-0.5.0-3.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0607/serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-01-20 07:13:10 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: serd Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-20 08:57:30 EST --- Do you want f16 as well?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2012-01-20 09:38:03 EST --- Sorry, yes. F16 has already been created. Am I going about this the right way?
Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: serd Short Description: A lightweight C library for RDF syntax Owners: bsjones Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-01-20 10:05:27 EST --- No, the tools we use handle this differently, submit a Package Change Request for just f15.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781685
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-02-02 12:33:18
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-02-02 12:33:18 EST --- serd-0.5.0-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla