Bug 581509

Anyone available to take a look?

Hello Enrique:

Just a fast comment. You should use "install -p" to preserve timestamps. Take a look here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps

I would like to see you package approved, I'm very interested in using it!

Cheers,
Germán.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Just a fast comment. You should use "install -p" to preserve timestamps. Take a
> look here:
> I would like to see you package approved, I'm very interested in using it!

Despite the funny name, YACAS is a great software. =)
Thank you for the tip Germán, I'll just forgot it. Fixing now.

Hi! Sorry for the delay.

spec: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/yacas/1.2.2/2/yacas.spec
srpm: http://lspooky.fedorapeople.org/yacas/1.2.2/2/yacas-1.2.2-2.fc12.src.rpm

No one is interested in reviewing? =)

on my TODO list

(In reply to comment #6)
> on my TODO list    

Thanks, Ankur.

hey,

A very quick look currently:

rpmlint works fine. 

I see the spec has a lot of Require: tags. 
Please have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Explicit_Requires

I'll do a detailed review when I find the time. Probably by the weekend. 

regards,
Ankur

review:

? - issue
+ - OK
- - NA
* - checking 

+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.

at line 102, forgot brackets around buildroot :P


+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
+ Sources match upstream md5sum:

[Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ md5sum SOURCES/yacas-1.2.2.tar.gz 
329f149ca3ceb976a7e596b56fc3cba5  SOURCES/yacas-1.2.2.tar.gz
[Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ md5sum yacas-1.2.2.tar.gz 
329f149ca3ceb976a7e596b56fc3cba5  yacas-1.2.2.tar.gz


- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
+ Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

+ Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
+ Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
? -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.

- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ No rpmlint output.
- final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

* Should build in mock.
* Should build on all supported archs
* Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
? Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
+ check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1.I see that miniLZO has been bundled along with yacas. That isn't permitted :(

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

You'll have to take care of that, since it's a library. It should be packaged separately and reviewed. yacas should then mention it as a build requires IMO. 

2. The requires on the base package need to be versioned. 

3. Short comments on the requires you've added is advised. 

I'm checking the should items, you should meanwhile correct the above. The bundled lib is a blocker. The package cannot be approved until that is corrected

Ankur

Thanks for the kind review, Ankur, I was just waiting for F13 to be released, now, I'm back to work.
Again, thank you so much, I'll be fixing this issues ASAP.

ping ? :)

Hi, Ankur, I'm sorry for the long silence.
Unfortunately, in this time, I was forced to made some changes due to my new job, my new home and some trips, and, I guess, the best thing to do is to admit that I no longer have the necessary time to be a Fedora contributor.
I'm working with Fedora since 2003 and is a little sad to know that, from now on, I have to be just an user.

Thank you for your time

(In reply to comment #12)
> Hi, Ankur, I'm sorry for the long silence.
> Unfortunately, in this time, I was forced to made some changes due to my new
> job, my new home and some trips, and, I guess, the best thing to do is to admit
> that I no longer have the necessary time to be a Fedora contributor.
> I'm working with Fedora since 2003 and is a little sad to know that, from now
> on, I have to be just an user.
> 
> Thank you for your time    

hey,

It's no problem at all. Best of luck with the new job :)

I'm leaving this review open. I'll try to find another contributor who'd like to complete the review and take over the package. 

regards,
Ankur

Closing review. Couldn't find anyone interested in taking this up :(

It is a great pity that no one has taken Yacas, since it is a very interesting software.
If you have some patience I could keep trying, even though I'm just able to work in the package once a week.
Tell me if it is ok to you.