Bug 1758007
| Summary: | Review Request: octave-jnifti - Fast NIfTI-1/2 reader and NIfTI-to-JNIfTI converter for MATLAB/Octave | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Qianqian Fang <fangqq> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <eclipseo> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | eclipseo, morgan.hough, neuro-sig, package-review, sanjay.ankur |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | eclipseo:
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 21:03:40 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 23:47:28 UTC
rpmlint output for srpm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ fangq@localhost:~/rpmbuild/SRPMS$ rpmlint octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc30.src.rpm octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nii -> ii, iii, nit octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gz -> g, z, gs octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hdr -> hr, her, HDD octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jnii -> genii octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bnii -> bani 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rpmlint output for rpm: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ fangq@localhost:~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch$ rpmlint octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc30.noarch.rpm octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nii -> ii, iii, nit octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gz -> g, z, gs octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hdr -> hr, her, HDD octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jnii -> genii octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bnii -> bani octave-jnifti.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/octave-jnifti/samples/nifti2/avg152T1_LR_nifti2.nii.gz octave-jnifti.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Missing BR to octave-devel BuildRequires: octave-devel - Do not repeat JNIfTI in the Summary: - Use a better name for your archive: Source0: https://github.com/fangq/%{octpkg}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 11714560 bytes in 19 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation Make a separate doc noarch subpackage. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 11714560 bytes in 19 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave-jnifti/review-octave- jnifti/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc32.noarch.rpm octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc32.src.rpm octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nii -> ii, iii, nit octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gz -> g, z, gs octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hdr -> hr, her, HDD octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jnii -> genii octave-jnifti.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bnii -> bani octave-jnifti.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/octave-jnifti/samples/headct/headct.nii.gz octave-jnifti.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/octave-jnifti/samples/nifti2/avg152T1_LR_nifti2.nii.gz octave-jnifti.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nii -> ii, iii, nit octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gz -> g, z, gs octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hdr -> hr, her, HDD octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US img -> mg, imp, i mg octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jnii -> genii octave-jnifti.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bnii -> bani 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. thanks. my spec file is now updated https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/79d761bc34266a207c482719ef4e996c2f052407 about the doc subpackage, do you have a sample octave-based project that has a similar structure - a main package with a doc subpackage? I know I can use %package to make subpackages, but not sure if I should avoid sharing the doc folder by both packages (should I make all %doc files/folders into the -doc package?) > about the doc subpackage, do you have a sample octave-based project that has a similar structure - a main package with a doc subpackage? No > I should avoid sharing the doc folder by both packages (should I make all %doc files/folders into the -doc package? Just include the %doc sample into a new doc subpackage, and remove it from the main one. to make it easier to manage, I created a sub-package (jnifti-demos) from this spec file https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/becd6b47956128267e30ae839d05e45b8d449a27 the current spec file can be found here https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/jnifti/octave-jnifti.spec let me know if this is acceptable. it compiles fine on fc30 (this package is script/data only). thanks (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #5) > to make it easier to manage, I created a sub-package (jnifti-demos) from > this spec file > > https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/ > becd6b47956128267e30ae839d05e45b8d449a27 > > the current spec file can be found here > > https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/jnifti/octave-jnifti.spec > > let me know if this is acceptable. it compiles fine on fc30 (this package is > script/data only). thanks Make the subpackage noarch. Package otherwise approved. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-jnifti FEDORA-2019-7dc70a0156 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7dc70a0156 FEDORA-2019-7965616639 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7965616639 FEDORA-2019-24b37b0c7f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-24b37b0c7f octave-jnifti-0.5-1.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-2019-24b37b0c7f octave-jnifti-0.5-1.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-2019-7965616639 octave-jnifti-0.5-1.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-2019-7dc70a0156 octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-jnifti-0.5-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |