Bug 1757993
| Summary: | Review Request: octave-zmat - A data compression toolbox for MATLAB/Octave | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Qianqian Fang <fangqq> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, sanjay.ankur, zebob.m |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | sanjay.ankur:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-10-08 14:55:27 UTC | Type: | --- |
| 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: | 1276941 | ||
|
Description
Qianqian Fang
2019-10-02 22:18:58 UTC
One question I have is about BuildArch - the code is portable and supports both i386 and x86_64, but if I change ExclusiveArch: x86_64 to BuildArch: i386, x86_64 then rpmlint gives an error: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag is i386 no longer supported? another question - do I need to explicitly add zlib as as Requires if octave already contains this dependency? thanks (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #1) > One question I have is about BuildArch - the code is portable and supports > both i386 and x86_64, but if I change > > ExclusiveArch: x86_64 > > to > > BuildArch: i386, x86_64 > > > then rpmlint gives an error: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag > > is i386 no longer supported? If the code is portable, then you must use `BuildArch: noarch`. It must build on all platforms that Fedora currently supports. You only use ExclusiveArch etc if the software does not support the whole set: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures And then tracker bugs must be filed to clarify this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support > > > another question - do I need to explicitly add zlib as as Requires if octave > already contains this dependency? > > thanks It is better to add it here explicitly---we should not rely on another package pulling it into the transaction. thanks, the spec file is now updated at https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/zmat/octave-zmat.spec https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/1fab7e3dad96803de281e3fc6e601cb38605c995 also included the suggestions from @eclipseo from other threads. builds fine on my machine. - Source1 should be: Source1: https://github.com/lloyd/easylzma/archive/0.0.7/easylzma-0.0.7.tar.gz (no v) - Use macros to respect Fedoras build flags %cmake . %make_build Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave- zmat/review-octave-zmat/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-debugsource-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc32.src.rpm octave-zmat.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mex -> Mex, me, ex octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzma -> lama octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzip -> lip, zip, l zip octave-zmat.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/octave/packages/zmat-0.9/zipmat.mex octave-zmat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mex -> Mex, me, ex octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzma -> lama octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzip -> lip, zip, l zip 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. thanks, the above mentioned issues are now fixed https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14 (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #5) > thanks, the above mentioned issues are now fixed > > https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/ > 88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14 You forgot %cmake I must have missed it, now added https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/35c1397042882eccdbd69ed0ddd84c9b3b8d3e0c LGTM, Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) assigned himself though, so I will let him finish. Still `cmake` instead of `%cmake` here: https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14/octave-zmat.spec#L64 Please fix that before you import and build. Thanks very much, Robert---you're doing more of our reviews than we are :) XXX APPROVED XXX thanks Ankur. sorry for the confusion, I moved the spec file to the zmat branch (original url was on the master). The final URL is https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/zmat/octave-zmat.spec I don't think I can change the bug report, but I will leave this URL here. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-zmat FEDORA-2019-1d23beb3d7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1d23beb3d7 FEDORA-2019-6602723b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6602723b8b FEDORA-2019-92ffc4f574 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-92ffc4f574 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-92ffc4f574 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-6602723b8b octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-1d23beb3d7 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |