Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 1231458

Summary: Review Request: osmpbf - C library to read and write OpenStreetMap PBF files
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Tom Hughes <tom>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jeff Backus <jeff.backus>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: antti.jarvinen, jeff.backus, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: jeff.backus: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-08-07 13:01:53 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1231459    

Description Tom Hughes 2015-06-13 14:01:47 UTC 
Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf-1.3.3-1.20150608git3730430.fc22.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Description:
Osmpbf is a Java/C library to read and write OpenStreetMap PBF files.
PBF (Protocol buffer Binary Format) is a binary file format for OpenStreetMap
data that uses Google Protocol Buffers as low-level storage.
Comment 1 Antti Järvinen 2015-06-16 20:52:33 UTC 
Hello Tom, 

I made a review of your package using a checklist. I'm not in packagers group so I can't submit your package further but I hope my review is useful for someone who considers doing that. 

Meanwhile, there are 3 items that should be addressed before package goes further:
 1. the file /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.1 is not according to guidelines of
    library naming and
 2. my opinion here: as the devel-package is useless without protobuf-devel
    package, protobuf-devel should be listed in dependencies. 
 3. debuginfo rpm is empty ; If understood right, the source code 
    is partly written in java so this might be hard task for source-
    debugger but I do not know. Either somehow disable generation of
    empty debuginfo package or twiddle compiler to provide some content
    for it. 

Good luck in getting your package into fedora, I personally see additional support for open map data format very welcome and useful.

--
Antti Järvinen

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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-
     osm/1231458-osmpbf/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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
 Note: directories are ok but file names are not,
 /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.1 -> libosmpbf.so.1.3.3
 /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so -> libosmpbf.so.1.3.3
 /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3
 the file libosmpbf.1 is not named as it should ; maybe intent was to
 name it to /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1 ??
[-]: 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.
   Note: there is debuginfo package but it contains no files ; 
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
      Note: only x86_64 tried, no problem
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 osmpbf-
     devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
Yes and no. In order to actually use the library you need protobuf-devel
     package or
      /usr/include/osmpbf/fileformat.pb.h:9:42: fatal error: google/protobuf/stubs/common.h: No such file or directory
     so it might make a lot of sense to list protobuf-devel also
     in deps of the binary package. Same goes to package protobuf-lite.
     After these additional packages were installed using yum, a part of map of
     finland was successfully read using the included tool.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
      x86_64 tried, no prob
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
      Note: there is no test suite present
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
   f21 and rawhide mocks tried, no problem. 
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: osmpbf-1.3.3-1.20150608git3730430.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-1.20150608git3730430.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          osmpbf-1.3.3-1.20150608git3730430.fc23.src.rpm
osmpbf.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3
osmpbf.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 libosmpbf.1
osmpbf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
osmpbf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-1.20150608git3730430.fc23.x86_64.rpm
osmpbf-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
osmpbf-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
osmpbf-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
osmpbf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
osmpbf.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3
osmpbf.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 libosmpbf.1
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 typeinfo for google::protobuf::MessageLite
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 typeinfo for google::protobuf::MessageLite
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::MessageLite::InitializationErrorString[abi:cxx11]() const
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::MessageLite::SerializeWithCachedSizesToArray(unsigned char*) const
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::InitEmptyString()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::empty_string_[abi:cxx11]
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::empty_string_once_init_
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 vtable for google::protobuf::internal::FunctionClosure0
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteBytesMaybeAliased(int, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteInt32(int, int, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::VarintSize32Fallback(unsigned int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::LogMessage::LogMessage(google::protobuf::LogLevel, char const*, int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::WriteVarint64(unsigned long)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::SkipField(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream*, unsigned int, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::MessageLite::~MessageLite()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::ReadTagFallback()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::~CodedOutputStream()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::OnShutdown(void (*)())
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::ReadString(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream*, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::RepeatedPtrFieldBase::Swap(google::protobuf::internal::RepeatedPtrFieldBase*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::ReadBytes(google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream*, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::VarintSize64(unsigned long)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::ReadVarint32Fallback(unsigned int*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::StringTypeHandlerBase::New[abi:cxx11]()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteSInt64(int, long, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::BytesUntilLimit() const
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteMessage(int, google::protobuf::MessageLite const&, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::LogMessage::~LogMessage()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteUInt32(int, unsigned int, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::LogFinisher::operator=(google::protobuf::internal::LogMessage&)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::RepeatedPtrFieldBase::Reserve(int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::StringOutputStream::StringOutputStream(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::LogMessage::operator<<(char const*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteInt64(int, long, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::CodedOutputStream(google::protobuf::io::ZeroCopyOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::WriteRaw(void const*, int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream::WriteVarint32(unsigned int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::StringOutputStream::~StringOutputStream()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::GoogleOnceInitImpl(long*, google::protobuf::Closure*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteStringMaybeAliased(int, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteString(int, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteBytes(int, std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::FunctionClosure0::~FunctionClosure0()
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::VerifyVersion(int, int, char const*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::StringTypeHandlerBase::Delete(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::PushLimit(int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::PopLimit(int)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::io::CodedInputStream::ReadVarint64Fallback(unsigned long*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 google::protobuf::internal::WireFormatLite::WriteBool(int, bool, google::protobuf::io::CodedOutputStream*)
osmpbf.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 /lib64/libm.so.6
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 53 warnings.



Requires
--------
osmpbf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    osmpbf

osmpbf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig



Provides
--------
osmpbf-devel:
    osmpbf-devel
    osmpbf-devel(x86-64)

osmpbf:
    osmpbf
    osmpbf(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary/archive/37304305779795ad6fe6a54f7d3f1abea761fba4/OSM-binary-37304305779795ad6fe6a54f7d3f1abea761fba4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c99113a18dd04cb28ff41b50ddca4c1450e3aef9dbc3e9f70f898b8a2c20b1b1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c99113a18dd04cb28ff41b50ddca4c1450e3aef9dbc3e9f70f898b8a2c20b1b1


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1231458 --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-06-16 22:21:01 UTC 
New version which hopefully fixes all those issues;

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf-1.3.3-2.20150608git3730430.fc22.src.rpm
Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2015-06-23 11:26:23 UTC 
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in osmpbf-
>      devel

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> License:        LGPLv3
> %license COPYING.osmpbf

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade
Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2015-06-23 11:32:44 UTC 
New version to fix the require:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf-1.3.3-3.20150608git3730430.fc22.src.rpm

I don't understand what you're saying about the license? Did you find a file with the wrong header or something?
Comment 5 Michael Schwendt 2015-06-23 15:48:40 UTC 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

  | [...] If you're using LGPLv3 in your project, be sure to include
  | copies of both GPLv3 and LGPLv3, since LGPLv3 is now written as
  | a set of additional permissions on top of GPLv3.
Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2015-06-23 16:13:56 UTC 
Ah right. I've opened https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary/pull/22 to fix that and new a version is at:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf-1.3.3-4.20150608git3730430.fc22.src.rpm
Comment 7 Jeff Backus 2015-07-12 15:05:23 UTC 
Hi Tom,

I reviewed your package. Thanks to all of the input from Antti and Michael, not much for me to add. I did have a few things, though:
* I'm still getting the following error:
/usr/include/osmpbf/fileformat.pb.h:9:42: fatal error: google/protobuf/stubs/common.h: No such file or directory
  Looks like the -devel package needs to Requires: protobuf-devel.
* Please provide links to koji builds to verify that package builds on all primary arches
* Please put only one item per BuildRequires or Requires entry. It makes it easier to read. This is an ask, not a requires - but pretty please? :)

Regards,
Jeff

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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/osmbpf/review-
     osmpbf/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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).
[!]: Package functions as described.
     I'm still getting:
     /usr/include/osmpbf/fileformat.pb.h:9:42: fatal error: google/protobuf/stubs/common.h: No such file or directory
     Looks like the -devel package needs a Requires: protobuf-devel.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
     Addressed in patch...
[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.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
     Koji builds?
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: osmpbf-1.3.3-4.20150608git3730430.fc22.i686.rpm
          osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-4.20150608git3730430.fc22.i686.rpm
          osmpbf-1.3.3-4.20150608git3730430.fc22.src.rpm
osmpbf-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-4.20150608git3730430.fc22.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
osmpbf-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
osmpbf.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 /lib/libm.so.6
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
osmpbf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libosmpbf.so.1
    osmpbf(x86-32)

osmpbf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libm.so.6
    libprotobuf.so.8
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
osmpbf-devel:
    osmpbf-devel
    osmpbf-devel(x86-32)

osmpbf:
    libosmpbf.so.1
    osmpbf
    osmpbf(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary/archive/37304305779795ad6fe6a54f7d3f1abea761fba4/OSM-binary-37304305779795ad6fe6a54f7d3f1abea761fba4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c99113a18dd04cb28ff41b50ddca4c1450e3aef9dbc3e9f70f898b8a2c20b1b1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c99113a18dd04cb28ff41b50ddca4c1450e3aef9dbc3e9f70f898b8a2c20b1b1


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n osmpbf
Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Comment 8 Tom Hughes 2015-07-12 15:46:30 UTC 
New version:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm

Scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10337248
Comment 9 Jeff Backus 2015-07-12 21:49:17 UTC 
Hi Tom,

Thanks for making the changes I requested. I re-reviewed your package and it looks good. Package APPROVED.

I'll try to take a look at libosmium when I get a chance, unless someone beats me to it...

Regards,
Jeff

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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/osmbpf/review-
     osmpbf/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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:
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
     Patch submitted to upstream...
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
          osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
          osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm
osmpbf-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
osmpbf-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
osmpbf.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libosmpbf.so.1.3.3 /lib/libm.so.6
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
osmpbf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libosmpbf.so.1
    osmpbf(x86-32)
    protobuf-devel

osmpbf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libm.so.6
    libprotobuf.so.8
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
osmpbf-devel:
    osmpbf-devel
    osmpbf-devel(x86-32)

osmpbf:
    libosmpbf.so.1
    osmpbf
    osmpbf(x86-32)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary/archive/17fd0ccf560fef545d21c904cf2370f92ad2a288/OSM-binary-17fd0ccf560fef545d21c904cf2370f92ad2a288.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 58ca4c84102dcb02274ffac057c94368fe955279db459005116b0c8c4159f59d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58ca4c84102dcb02274ffac057c94368fe955279db459005116b0c8c4159f59d


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n osmpbf
Buildroot used: fedora-22-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Comment 10 Tom Hughes 2015-07-12 22:09:29 UTC 
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: osmpbf
Short Description: C library to read and write OpenStreetMap PBF files
Upstream URL: https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary
Owners: tomh
Branches: f21 f22
Comment 11 Tom Hughes 2015-07-15 15:25:35 UTC 
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: osmpbf
Short Description: C library to read and write OpenStreetMap PBF files
Upstream URL: https://github.com/scrosby/OSM-binary
Owners: tomh
Branches: f21 f22 f23
Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-07-15 17:34:26 UTC 
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-07-15 20:18:35 UTC 
osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-07-18 02:11:01 UTC 
osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-07-21 15:33:25 UTC 
libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc21,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc21,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-07-29 01:37:07 UTC 
libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22, osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2015-08-07 13:01:53 UTC 
osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2015-08-10 10:05:42 UTC 
osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.