Bug 2517899

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
     License seems gp GPLv2 only to me.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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]: 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 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 3023 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
     Please tell how source1 was generated
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Possible to add a sanity check of some sort?
[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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gap-pkg-perfgrp-1.0.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc-1.0.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-perfgrp-1.0.0-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpxmiyyehr')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-perfgrp.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: gap-pkg-perfgrp-testdata.tar.xz

gap-pkg-perfgrp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-perfgrp/LICENSE

> Please ping upstream about this issue.

gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s 

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 33, packages: 2

gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-perfgrp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-perfgrp/LICENSE
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/perfgrp/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 8 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/perfgrp/archive/v1.0.0/perfgrp-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fde475b0001d3a2e10062f1ab56fd1a6b5bcf5aa92824b7ea5d4412b3a3ff219
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fde475b0001d3a2e10062f1ab56fd1a6b5bcf5aa92824b7ea5d4412b3a3ff219


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-perfgrp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core

gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-online-help
    gap-pkg-perfgrp



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-perfgrp:
    gap(PerfGrp)
    gap(perfgrp)
    gap-pkg-perfgrp

gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc:
    gap-pkg-perfgrp-doc

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #1)
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 
>      License seems gp GPLv2 only to me.

In the gap world, package metadata resides in PackageInfo.g.  If you look in this package's PackageInfo.g, line 12 is:

License := "GPL-2.0-or-later",

> [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>      Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
>      Please tell how source1 was generated

I have added a comment explaining this.

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>      Possible to add a sanity check of some sort?

There actually is a %check section already, and it runs some tests.  It's partially hidden behind the gap buildsystem macros, though, which may make it hard to notice.  Take a look at the build log.  You should see %check in the output, and after the GAP banner some text that starts like this:
```
testing: ~/build/BUILD/gap-pkg-perfgrp-1.0.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/gap/pkg\
/perfgrp/tst/PerfectGroups.tst
    1783 ms (360 ms GC) and 456MB allocated for PerfectGroups.tst
```

and ending like this:
```
-----------------------------------
total     38358 ms (1480 ms GC) and 2.42GB allocated
              0 failures in 4 files

#I  No errors detected while testing
```

> gap-pkg-perfgrp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-perfgrp/LICENSE
> 
> > Please ping upstream about this issue.

I have done so: https://github.com/gap-packages/perfgrp/issues/2

The URLs are the same as before:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-perfgrp/gap-pkg-perfgrp.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-perfgrp/gap-pkg-perfgrp-1.0.0-1.fc46.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10899425
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2517899-gap-pkg-perfgrp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10899425-gap-pkg-perfgrp/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.