[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 --- Comment #5 from Bob Hepple --- Here's another iteration incorporating your suggestions: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01276071-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01276071-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus-0.1.4-1.fc31.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276
--- Comment #4 from Artem ---
LGTM, just few minor nitpicks, mostly cosmetic, but some items as MUST:
1. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: libuInputPlus-devel. Does not provide -static:
libuInputPlus-devel.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
Just remove it in %install stage:
rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libuInputPlus.a
2. Move pkgconfig files into -devel package:
%files devel
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
3.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
%{_libdir}/libuInputPlus.so.0
%{_libdir}/libuInputPlus.so.%{version}
->
%{_libdir}/libuInputPlus.so.0*
4. The rule of thumb is always use popd with pushd. Also you can skip them in
%install stage:
pushd %{_target_platform}
%make_install
->
%make_install -C %{_target_platform}
5. W: summary-not-capitalized C development files for libuInputPlus
Summary: a c++ wrapper around libuinput
->
Summary: C++ wrapper around libuinput
Even if this is not documented yet in guidelines, many packagers recommends to
skip A/The in Summary. It's OK to use them in %description.
6. Add to devel package
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
7. W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.4-1.fc31 ['0.1.4-1.fc33', '0.1.4-1']
In %changelog:
0.1.4-1.fc31
->
0.1.4-1
---
The one this which i am not sure is - should we convert package name to lower
case or not:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_naming
I'll ask about this other maintainers...
---
Also just note: next time when you post here new, updated spec and SRPM you can
just post plain links for them without additional 'FAS Username: foo'. Hope
this saves you some time. :)
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 --- Comment #3 from Bob Hepple --- I should mention that I did _not_ include a %ctest section as the test program requires sudo -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 --- Comment #2 from Bob Hepple --- Thanks for the comprehensive review. (I will apply these points to the libevdevPlus and ydotool specs too.) The new spec file now passes rpmlint without errors or warnings and I have used the updated version 0.1.4 since released by upstream. SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01260041-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus-0.1.4-1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/ydotool/fedora-31-x86_64/01260041-libuInputPlus/libuInputPlus.spec FAS Username: wef -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Artem ---
1. Drop date from:
Version: 0.1.3.20200211
->
Version: 0.1.3
Also the latest version should been packaged which is 0.1.4.
2. Drop 'wef' from:
Release: 1%{?dist}.wef
->
Release: 1%{?dist}
3. Source URL incorrect and not downloadable:
Source0:
https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libuInputPlus/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
->
Source0: %{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
4. Use new line for every BR. It's easier for patch/diff and for better
readability. Also please sort it in alphabetical order.
BuildRequires: cmake make gcc-c++
->
BuildRequires: cmake
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
BuildRequires: make
5. Add dot into the end of description:
Library required for ydotool
->
Library required for ydotool.
6. Instead of build dir better use:
mkdir build
->
mkdir -p %{_target_platform}
7. Instead of cd us pushd/popd:
cd build
->
pushd %{_target_platform}
8. Use cmake macros and do not hardcode paths:
cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr ..
->
%cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix} ..
9. Use macros for make:
%make_build
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make
10. Add %install section before %make_install
11. You need to own dir, do not glob here:
%{_includedir}/*
->
%{_includedir}/uInputPlus/
12. Seems like there is test persist in this project. Run tests in %check
section
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites
13. Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
14.
---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: libevdevPlus. Illegal package name:
libevdevPlus. Does not provide -static: libevdevPlus.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-
linux/tmp/review/1808278-libevdevPlus/licensecheck.txt
[!]: %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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[Bug 1808276] Review request: libuInputPlus - a c++ wrapper around libuinput
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1807753 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753 [Bug 1807753] Review Request: ydotool - Generic command-line automation tool -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
