Bug 1100409

This is an *INFORMAL* package-review

[!] koij-build is missing

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.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)".
     8 files have unknown license.
     ---> Note about license is missing in all files in /libixion-0.7.0/bin/
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
     ---> COPYING is not installed for subpackages
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
     ---> use %{_sbindir} instead of /sbin/ 
[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 184320 bytes in 4 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 %doc.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
     ---> add -p to the install commands
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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: libixion-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-devel-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-tools-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-0.7.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
libixion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libixion libixion-devel libixion-tools
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
libixion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libboost_system.so.1.55.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.55.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libixion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)

libixion-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libboost_program_options.so.1.55.0()(64bit)
    libboost_system.so.1.55.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.55.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
libixion:
    libixion
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)

libixion-devel:
    libixion-devel
    libixion-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libixion-0.8)

libixion-tools:
    libixion-tools
    libixion-tools(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://kohei.us/files/ixion/src/libixion-0.7.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c9594ec93e911b40b26784ccdae47df8ea3a7d9b57bbad876733e4efcedf5581
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9594ec93e911b40b26784ccdae47df8ea3a7d9b57bbad876733e4efcedf5581


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1100409
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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Quite a good job, Florian!  Things I don't explicitly mention here are fine.

(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #1)
> This is an *INFORMAL* package-review
> 
> [!] koij-build is missing

---> That's no real neccessity…  But mostly welocmed by reviewers, so they
     have a proof the pkg does *at least* build successful before starting
     the review.


> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>      "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL
> (v2.0)".
>      8 files have unknown license.
>      ---> Note about license is missing in all files in /libixion-0.7.0/bin/

---> That's not the real point about the license check.  ;)  There are a
     lot of packages with files, that don't have any license-header in them.
     The real point is to e.g. get some evidence about bundled libs and such.

     As long as the license-tag in spec-file matches the actual license from
     COPYING / LICENSE and the corresponding source-files everything is fine.

     There are some cases, when a different license doesn't need to be inside
     license-tag.  For this one it is the file called `ltmain.sh`, which is
     part of the autotools buildsys and doesn't get installed by the resulting
     packages.  btw.  the files inside that ./bin/ dir are used for invoking
     the testsuite during %check.  The also don't get installed by the
     resulting binary-pkgs.


> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>      ---> COPYING is not installed for subpackages

---> COPYING is in main-pkg, which is fine.  The other subpackages do have
     a requirement for the mainpkg: `%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}`
     So the file gets installed with the mainpkg even when one installes the
     devel or tools pkg.


> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
>      ---> use %{_sbindir} instead of /sbin/ 

---> since /sbin/ is part of the FHS and used only in %post{in,un} everthing
     is fine about that.  The way that sniplet is used is even documentet
     this way in [1].


> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

---> If you find issues in the package, you usually wouldn't check
     this `PASS`.  ^^


> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.

---> That's where the koji-build comes in handy.  Since the reported didn't
     do one, did you to assure yourself?


> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
>      ---> add -p to the install commands

---> One may do this, but in this special case I don't see any *strong*
     reason for it.  The man-pages, which are installed by the invocation of
     `install`, in question are generated on the fly during %build, using
     `help2man`, so the timestamp won't be the same during two different
     builds.  If those would have been static files with a fixed timestamp,
     I'd strongly agree upon using the `-p`-switch on install.


[1]  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


===== 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.
[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:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)".
     8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1100409-libixion/licensecheck.txt

     ---> license-tag is fine.  GPLv2+ applies to ltmain.sh, only, which
          is part of autotools buildsys and doesn't get packaged.

[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 184320 bytes in 4 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 %doc.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.

     ---> see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6904844

[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

     ---> except for those man-pages, but they generated on-the-fly using
          `help2man` anyways.

[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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: libixion-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-devel-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-tools-0.7.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libixion-0.7.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
libixion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libixion libixion-devel libixion-tools
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ixion -> Ix ion, Ix-ion, Xiongnu
libixion.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

---> spelling errors ignored.


Requires
--------
libixion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libixion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)

libixion-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libboost_program_options.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
    libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
    libboost_thread.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
libixion:
    libixion
    libixion(x86-64)
    libixion-0.8.so.0()(64bit)

libixion-devel:
    libixion-devel
    libixion-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libixion-0.8)

libixion-tools:
    libixion-tools
    libixion-tools(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://kohei.us/files/ixion/src/libixion-0.7.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c9594ec93e911b40b26784ccdae47df8ea3a7d9b57bbad876733e4efcedf5581
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9594ec93e911b40b26784ccdae47df8ea3a7d9b57bbad876733e4efcedf5581


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1100409
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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG


===== Additional Information =====

You can safely drop those Group-tags.  They are obsolete since RHEL6.


===== Solution =====

Package APPROVED!!!  Thanks for careful packaging, David! ^^

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libixion
Short Description: A general purpose formula parser & interpreter library
Upstream URL: https://gitorious.org/ixion/pages/Home
Owners: dtardon
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).