build
=====
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16385362

rpmlint output
==============
# rpmlint libdirq-0.4-1.el7.src.rpm 
libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic
libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, inviolability
libdirq.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
libdirq.src: W: no-url-tag
libdirq.src:35: W: make-check-outside-check-section make test
libdirq.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
libdirq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libdirq-0.4.tgz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.

MUST
====

[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[MISSING] Changelog in prescribed format.
[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[FAIL] 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 must be included in %doc.
[OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[OK] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[FAIL] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[OK] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[--] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[FAIL] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[--] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.

[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[--] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
[OK] Package installs properly.

SHOULD
======
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[FAIL] Parallel make
[--] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[--] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[OK] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[OK] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[OK] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

So, in summary, missing bits:

* %changelog is missing
* An URL field could be added
* make test should be in %check
* LICENSE missing in %doc
* There is a static library, that should be in -static
* The spec file should reference upstream (either repo+tag or tar.gz)
* make should be parallel (make %{?_smp_mflags})

Cheers.

Alejandro, thanks for your recommendations.

I have updated the spec file, see:

Spec URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq.spec
SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/lionel.cons/c-dirq/libdirq-0.4-2.el7.src.rpm

Could you please check this new version?

See the corresponding build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16401163

Looks good. Last missing thing: %defattr(-,root,root,-) for %files static

rpmlint:
libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systematic
libdirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, inviolability
libdirq.src:77: E: files-attr-not-set
libdirq.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Cheers.

Indeed, now added...

Accepted.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libdirq

libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-693fad51b5

libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5367cf57b0

libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7a13703365

libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5367cf57b0

libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-693fad51b5

libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7a13703365

libdirq-0.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libdirq-0.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libdirq-0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

(In reply to Alejandro Alvarez from comment #1)
> MUST
> ====
> 
> [OK] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

The -debuginfo package is not ok, it lacks sources and the package is not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (which is quite probably the reason for the faulty -debuginfo). This needs to be fixed.

Ville, I've added support for $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and rebuilt the package:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16804470

Could you please check that the -debuginfo package is now ok?

At least, it now contains the source files...

It seems to be ok. However, looking at the build log:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/libdirq/0.4/2.fc26/data/logs/x86_64/build.log

> using cflags=-O -DNDEBUG -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -fpic
> [...]
> + make -j48 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fpic'

Looks like the build is now overriding everything in upstream CFLAGS instead of adding the Fedora ones to it. That may have unexpected results; in particular the omission of -DNDEBUG may be a problem. I suggest modifying the build so that it appends RPM_OPT_FLAGS to upstream's default CFLAGS instead of overriding all of them.

Sorry for the late reply.

This should be fixed in the latest spec using upstream 0.5.

Here is the latest build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21041228

Seems ok now in libdirq-0.5-1.fc27, based on a brief look at the build log.