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=530568 Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-23 12:21:56 EDT --- Currently the tests are failing because the pythonpath are wrong... with PYTHONPATH=$(PYTHONPATH)+":$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitearch} " LD_LIBRARY_PA TH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ghmm make check it's a bit closer to success, but now there are IO warnings: I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0" .I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0" I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0" Don't know where they try to load that file. Maybe you have more luck ;) About static libraries: Ok, but in the guidelines stands "In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists.". Don't know, if this is a blocker, I need to ask someone else ;) >You can export CFLAGS in the %configure line with >CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" %configure --enable-gsl --enable-experimental >--enable-unsupported Sorry, my fault %configure already exports exactly this CFLAGS, see: $ rpm --eval %configure Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. It is in %{name}-3.spec (probably you won't upload it like this, just as a backup solution, but anyway...). [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: [] devel/i386 [] devel/x86_64 [] F11/i386 [x] F11/x86_64 [] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint ghmm.spec ghmm-0.7-3.svn2286.fc11.src.rpm x86_64/ghmm-* ghmm.spec:94: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e 's|$(PYTHON) setup.py install.*$|$(PYTHON) setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}|' \ ghmm.src:94: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e 's|$(PYTHON) setup.py install.*$|$(PYTHON) setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}|' \ ghmm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libghmm.so.1.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx ghmm.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/ghmm-0.7/AUTHORS ghmm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghmm-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings - The buildroot-usage is ok, shared-lib-calls-exit is notified upstream as stated in spec file. - spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/ghmm-0.7/AUTHORS - And AUTHORS is non-utf8, please convert… http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingTricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8 [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Some files have no license header, upstream notified as stated in spec file [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: LGPLv2+ [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 %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Upstream source: 5ff2ec84ab3e3877724d332e86fdb88d Build source: 24d1829f2562d04115b7f028e0399f0f But a full diff is clean, this results because the source needed to be generated and timestamps could differ... ok [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. see rpmlint output [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. One revision behind trunk, commit is not useful, ok. [-] 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=1764745 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. ______________________________ issues: - wait for answer about static libs - spurious-executable, non-utf-8 > reduce rpmlint output. - rename spec file to %{name}.spec - maybe find a way for building the test suite… :( - delete CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" again :((( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review