Bug 2270581

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7191426
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2270581-gap-pkg-anupq/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07191426-gap-pkg-anupq/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Could you please review RHBZ#2227804 in exchange? :)

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

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

Observations
============

- Add-ons that use GAPDoc to build documentation MUST include BuildRequires: GAPDoc-latex
  That package is pulled and already installed. So nothing to do here.

- GAP documentation MUST be installed under %{gap_libdir}/pkg or %{gap_archdir}/pkg
  This is done correctly in your package. It produces a lot of rpmlint complaints. But it is matching the Guideline 100%.

- In the %%check section, a shell redirection is not needed to run the tests suite.
  That's not a blocker anyway.

Ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/

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

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "*No copyright* Artistic License 2.0",
     "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
     v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]",
     "Artistic License 2.0". 433 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Note: %%autochangelog macro used.
[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.
     Note: ExcludeArch used is optional.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 282900 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 %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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.
[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]: 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: gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-anupq-doc-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
======================================================= rpmlint session starts =======================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn6s_yyme')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

gap-pkg-anupq.src: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l en_US automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l en_US automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/tst/test1.pga /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/standalone/examples/pga_3gp
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/chooser.html /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/lefttoc.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/nocolorprompt.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/ragged.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/rainbow.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/times.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
================= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings, 31 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s =================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo-3.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
======================================================= rpmlint session starts =======================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw8913ntn')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 4

gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('automorphism', '%description -l en_US automorphism -> isomorphism, metamorphism')
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-anupq.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/tst/test1.pga /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/standalone/examples/pga_3gp
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/chooser.html /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/lefttoc.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/manual.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/nocolorprompt.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/ragged.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/rainbow.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/times.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.css /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-anupq-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib64/gap/pkg/anupq/doc/toggless.js /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 28 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/anupq/releases/download/v3.3.0/anupq-3.3.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d0bc6e583718a311d4d1fe5e16fc94c71b67d894cf0fa00df99181e1967f615c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0bc6e583718a311d4d1fe5e16fc94c71b67d894cf0fa00df99181e1967f615c


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-anupq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/perl
    gap-core(x86-64)
    gap-pkg-autpgrp
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

gap-pkg-anupq-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-pkg-anupq(x86-64)
    gap-pkg-autpgrp-doc

gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-anupq:
    gap-pkg-anupq
    gap-pkg-anupq(x86-64)

gap-pkg-anupq-doc:
    gap-pkg-anupq-doc
    gap-pkg-anupq-doc(x86-64)

gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo
    gap-pkg-anupq-debuginfo(x86-64)

gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource:
    gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource
    gap-pkg-anupq-debugsource(x86-64)



----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------

Thank you for the review, Matthieu!

(In reply to Matthieu Saulnier from comment #3)
> - GAP documentation MUST be installed under %{gap_libdir}/pkg or
> %{gap_archdir}/pkg
>   This is done correctly in your package. It produces a lot of rpmlint
> complaints. But it is matching the Guideline 100%.

Yes, the documentation has to be installed where it is for gap itself to read it correctly.  Upstream is working on a fix for this, but it hasn't landed in the main gap package yet.

> - In the %%check section, a shell redirection is not needed to run the tests
> suite.
>   That's not a blocker anyway.

Thanks for noticing that.  I had to introduce shell redirections for other gap-pkg-* packages a few gap releases ago.  I don't remember the details of the problem now, but there was some sort of issue with gap hanging instead of exiting without the redirection.  That appears to have been fixed.  I'll remove the redirections from the other packages.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-anupq

FEDORA-2024-09b384874d (gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-09b384874d

FEDORA-2024-09b384874d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-09b384874d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-09b384874d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2024-09b384874d (gap-pkg-anupq-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.