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 1231459

Summary:	Review Request: libosmium - Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tom Hughes <tom>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jeff Backus <jeff.backus>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	i, jeff.backus, package-review, ville.skytta
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 13:01:57 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:	1231458
Bug Blocks:	496968, 1231460

Description Tom Hughes 2015-06-13 14:02:08 UTC

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Description:
A fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data.

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-07-12 15:57:28 UTC

New upstream version:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 2 Jeff Backus 2015-07-12 23:14:45 UTC

Hi Tom,

I'll review your package. Here are my notes, with full review at end.

* HTML documentation needs to go in a -doc subpackage as it is ~50M, which is larger than the 1M limit.
* Do not use noarch, even though this is a headers-only package. See: 
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries
* Please provide koji builds.
* Please only place 1 Require or BuildRequire item per entry (request, not requirement)

Regards,
Jeff

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 50944000 bytes in 2496 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "BSL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated". 254 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-
     libosmium/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
     Headers-only library.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
     Headers-only, but needs to not be noarch.
[x]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.10 starting (python version = 3.4.2)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled yum cache
Start: cleaning yum metadata
Finish: cleaning yum metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.10
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.10
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-libosmium/results/libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/yum-deprecated --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-22-i386/root/ --releasever 22 install /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-libosmium/results/libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          libosmium-2.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Requires
--------
libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    boost-devel
    bzip2-devel
    expat-devel
    gdal-devel
    geos-devel
    osmpbf-devel
    proj-devel
    protobuf-compiler
    protobuf-devel
    protobuf-lite-devel
    sparsehash-devel
    zlib-devel



Provides
--------
libosmium-devel:
    libosmium-devel
    libosmium-static



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium
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 3 Tom Hughes 2015-07-12 23:25:45 UTC

I'll do a koji build once osmpbf is in rawhide, and I'll look at the doc thing.

It's only the devel package that is noarch (as described in the comment at the top) so the tests should run everywhere - that scheme was actually copied from another header only library - uthash I think. Happy to change it though.

Comment 4 Jeff Backus 2015-07-14 13:13:44 UTC

(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #3)
> I'll do a koji build once osmpbf is in rawhide, and I'll look at the doc
> thing.

Sounds good.

> It's only the devel package that is noarch (as described in the comment at
> the top) so the tests should run everywhere - that scheme was actually
> copied from another header only library - uthash I think. Happy to change it
> though.

Yes, please change it. I think that is why Mock had problems installing the package during the review - at least I hope. Plus the guidelines explicitly mention not to package header-only packages as noarch. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience with header-only packages to comment on the potential pitfalls of using noarch, so I have to defer to the wisdom of others. :)

Regards,
Jeff

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-07-15 20:06:36 UTC

New version:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-2.fc22.src.rpm

Scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10370460

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2015-07-16 00:25:52 UTC

You should use %cmake.

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2015-07-16 07:41:13 UTC

New version using %cmake:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-3.fc22.src.rpm

New scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10376148

Comment 8 Tom Hughes 2015-07-16 18:23:15 UTC

Just noticed a bundled header file (from boost, to support old versions, so not needed on Fedora) so here's a new version with it removed.

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-4.fc22.src.rpm

New scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10381529

Comment 9 Jeff Backus 2015-07-18 01:36:28 UTC

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the update. Package looks fine except the doc subpackage needs a copy of the license. Please add that and I'll approve. Thanks!

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]: 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". 254 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-
     libosmium/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     doc package needs license
[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.
     Header-only package, thus -debuginfo is empty.
[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 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libosmium-devel , libosmium-doc
[!]: Package functions as described.
     Checks pass, but otherwise didn't verify.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[x]: %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]: 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: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-4.fc22.i686.rpm
          libosmium-doc-2.2.0-4.fc22.noarch.rpm
          libosmium-2.2.0-4.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libosmium-debuginfo-2.2.0-4.fc22.i686.rpm
libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    boost-devel
    bzip2-devel
    expat-devel
    gdal-devel
    geos-devel
    osmpbf-devel
    proj-devel
    protobuf-compiler
    protobuf-devel
    protobuf-lite-devel
    sparsehash-devel
    zlib-devel

libosmium-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libosmium-devel:
    libosmium-devel
    libosmium-devel(x86-32)
    libosmium-static

libosmium-doc:
    libosmium-doc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium -L /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/
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

Built with local dependencies:
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm

Comment 10 Tom Hughes 2015-07-18 06:39:21 UTC

License added:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/tmp/libosmium-2.2.0-5.fc22.src.rpm

Comment 11 Jeff Backus 2015-07-18 22:22:28 UTC

Hi Tom,

Thanks! Package looks good. APPROVED.

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]: 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". 254 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/review-
     libosmium/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.
     Header-only package, thus -debuginfo is empty.
[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 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libosmium-devel , libosmium-doc
[?]: Package functions as described.
     Checks pass, but otherwise didn't verify.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[x]: %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]: 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: libosmium-devel-2.2.0-5.fc22.i686.rpm
          libosmium-doc-2.2.0-5.fc22.noarch.rpm
          libosmium-2.2.0-5.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libosmium-debuginfo-2.2.0-5.fc22.i686.rpm
libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libosmium-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
libosmium-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    boost-devel
    bzip2-devel
    expat-devel
    gdal-devel
    geos-devel
    osmpbf-devel
    proj-devel
    protobuf-compiler
    protobuf-devel
    protobuf-lite-devel
    sparsehash-devel
    zlib-devel

libosmium-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libosmium-devel:
    libosmium-devel
    libosmium-devel(x86-32)
    libosmium-static

libosmium-doc:
    libosmium-doc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/osmcode/libosmium/archive/1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3/libosmium-1318732a2f6dd7d0f90fb5f6eae1bccfcdb4a4a3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93929cd9f3f999832b2e167cfa8e33d27dba1aaf44a7789a336a06c746e9312b
https://github.com/osmcode/osm-testdata/archive/54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d/osm-testdata-54c45802006274caf88f8451c03f7cb90768757d.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c501a213904652c1723de5967e036512ab67e08503fe76c98fa620af67354762


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libosmium -L osmpbf_repo/
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

Built with local dependencies:
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-devel-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-debuginfo-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.src.rpm
    /mnt/storage/backed_up/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/libosmium/osmpbf_repo/osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22.i686.rpm

Comment 12 Tom Hughes 2015-07-18 22:29:50 UTC

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libosmium
Short Description: Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data
Upstream URL: http://osmcode.org/libosmium/
Owners: tomh
Branches: f21 f22 f23

Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2015-07-20 17:16:50 UTC

WARNING: Requested package name libosmium doesn't match bug summary libosimum 

Which is the correct name here?

Comment 14 Tom Hughes 2015-07-20 18:06:44 UTC

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libosmium
Short Description: Fast and flexible C++ library for working with OpenStreetMap data
Upstream URL: http://osmcode.org/libosmium/
Owners: tomh
Branches: f21 f22 f23

Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-07-21 11:09:47 UTC

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-07-21 15:33:14 UTC

osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22, libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11804/libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22,osmpbf-1.3.3-5.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2015-07-21 15:33:27 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 18 Ville Skyttä 2015-07-25 07:41:40 UTC

Review contains multiple notes about empty -debuginfo package, but it remains unaddressed -- empty one is not okay. If there's nothing to extract debug info from, -debuginfo needs to be explicitly disabled.

Comment 19 Tom Hughes 2015-07-25 11:08:17 UTC

Apologies for that. It definitely was gone but I think it came back when we switched the devel package back from noarch to arched.

I'm building new versions now.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2015-07-29 01:37:10 UTC

libosmium-2.2.0-6.fc22, osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2015-08-07 13:01:57 UTC

osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc21, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2015-08-10 10:05:44 UTC

osmpbf-1.3.3-6.20150712git17fd0cc.fc22, libosmium-2.2.0-8.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.