https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638768 --- Comment #7 from Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6) > - Not used anymore for F28+ > > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > > If you plan on packaging for EPEL7 or F27, use %ldconfig_scriptlets yes, i plan to package for EPEL7. have changed to %ldconfig_scriptlets . > > - In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we now forbid globbing the > major soname version. Be more specific instead: > > %{_libdir}/libfmt.so.5* > > - %{_datarootdir} → %{_datadir} > thanks fixed all of them. > > (In reply to Kefu Chai from comment #4) > > to understand the reverse dependencies of fmt, i ran following commands on > > an update-to-date fedora28: > > > > $ for pkg in -devel "" -static -doc; do \ > > dnf repoquery -q --alldeps --whatrequires fmt$pkg; \ > > done > > fmt-static-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.i686 > > fmt-static-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.x86_64 > > fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.i686 > > fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-5.fc28.x86_64 > > > > $ for pkg in -devel "" -static -doc; do \ > > dnf repoquery --archlist=src --repoid=fedora-source -q --whatrequires > > fmt$pkg; \ > > done > > # nothing returned > > > > > > so i think it's safe to update fmt{,-devel,-doc} on fedora28. and the same > > is very likely to be true on rawhive. > > $ dnf repoquery --whatrequires fmt --enablerepo="*-source" > fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.i686 > fmt-devel-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-gbm-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-gbm-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-wayland-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-wayland-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-x11-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-x11-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.x86_64 > > dnf repoquery --whatrequires fmt-devel --enablerepo="*-source" > fmt-static-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.i686 > fmt-static-0:3.0.2-7.fc29.x86_64 > kodi-0:18.0-0.10.b3.fc29.src > kodi-0:18.0-0.9.b2.fc29.src > > Bumping fmt would requires rebuilding kodi. You'll need to announce the bump > in the devel mailing list one week in advance and coordinate directly with > the kodi* maintainers. > ahh! thank you! i checked the packaging of kodi. guess we will just need to change BuildRequires: fmt-devel to BuildRequires: fmt-devel >= 5.2.1 i will get in touch with kodi*'s maintainers over the devel mailing list. > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. > Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in fmt > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets > > > ===== 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. > [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. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", > "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or > "Revised" License". 185 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fmt/review- > fmt/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. > [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. > [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 92160 bytes in 2 files. yes, the 92K document is usr/share/doc/fmt/api.html in fmt-doc package. that's the main api document for this package. > [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]: 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]: 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: > [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > Note: Package contains font files > [-]: 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). > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fmt-doc > , fmt-debuginfo , fmt-debugsource > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [x]: 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. > [x]: %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: fmt-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > fmt-devel-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > fmt-doc-5.2.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm > fmt-debuginfo-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > fmt-debugsource-5.2.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > fmt-5.2.1-1.fc30.src.rpm > fmt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, > print f printf is not a typo. quote from the description section: ====8<===== C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams. ====>8===== so in this context, i guess it's fine to use printf. > fmt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation the document is packaged in fmt-doc, the license and changelog are included in fmt package. > fmt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, > print f > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. thanks for the review. following is the info of updated package: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tchaikov/libfmt/master/fmt.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tchaikov/libfmt/fedora-28-ppc64le/00812978-fmt/fmt-5.2.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: C++ Format is an open-source formatting library for C++. It can be used as a safe alternative to printf or as a fast alternative to IOStreams. Fedora Account System Username: tchaikov https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tchaikov/libfmt/fedora-28-ppc64le/00812978-fmt/fmt-5.2.1-1.fc28.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30342847 coprs build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tchaikov/libfmt/build/812978/ $ rpmlint x86_64/fmt-5.2.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm x86_64/fmt-devel-5.2.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm noarch/fmt-doc-5.2.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm fmt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US printf -> print, prints, print f fmt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
