Bug 822897

Just some comments to give other people chance to choose
to review the package and then have more comments.

This is a simpler one than
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896
to review pari-elldata

Somewhat of the same comment about version number applies,
but just a comment. It should be ok to use the full release
date as version.

There is no documentation in the package, so, it should
be the main pari package license, but better to verify it.

Based on feedback for the pari-elldata package (Bug #822896), I've updated this one to add a dist tag, ensure sane permissions using %{_fixperms} and conflict with incompatible old versions of pari.

Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-galdata/branches/fedora/pari-galdata.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-galdata-20080411-2.src.rpm

The license is stated as being GPLv2+ on the upstream site at:
http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/packages.html

Ok, to tell the truth, this is the first time I use fedora-review,
very handy, but I believe you did again write the wrong SRPM URL
link.

$ fedora-review -v -b 822897 
Processing review bug : 822897
  --> Working dir : /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/
Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from bug report : 822897
  --> Spec url : http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-galdata/branches/fedora/pari-galdata.spec
  --> SRPM url : http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-galdata-20080411-2.src.rpm
Downloading .spec and .srpm files
  --> /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/ : http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-galdata/branches/fedora/pari-galdata.spec
  --> /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/ : http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-galdata-20080411-2.src.rpm
  --> Spec file : /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/pari-galdata.spec
  --> SRPM file : /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/pari-galdata-20080411-2.src.rpm
[...]
ERROR: Cannot find/open srpm: /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/pari-galdata-20080411-2.src.rpm. Error: RPM Error opening Package
[...]

Otherwise, I am not sure about rules on multiple packages
owning the same base directory, e.g. it should only
own, and list explicitly %{_datadir}/pari/galdata

(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, to tell the truth, this is the first time I use fedora-review,
> very handy, but I believe you did again write the wrong SRPM URL
> link.

Indeed I did:

Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/pari-galdata/branches/fedora/pari-galdata.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/pari/pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc18.src.rpm

> Otherwise, I am not sure about rules on multiple packages
> owning the same base directory, e.g. it should only
> own, and list explicitly %{_datadir}/pari/galdata

This package cannot require pari (the owner of %{_datadir}/pari) as that would create circular build dependencies. Hence this package also owns %{_datadir}/pari so that the directory is owned if this package is installed without pari itself.

Multiple packages owning the same directory is OK by the guidelines if there is no dependency relationship between those packages:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc18.src.rpm

pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polgalois -> megalopolis, Galois
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


rpmlint pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc18.noarch.rpm

pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polgalois -> megalopolis, Galois
pari-galdata.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/galdata.tgz :
  MD5SUM this package     : f9f61b2930757a785b568e5d307a7d75
  MD5SUM upstream package : f9f61b2930757a785b568e5d307a7d75
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/822897/galdata.tgz.asc :
  MD5SUM this package     : c2d0b0aa0772001e21769e676180937b
  MD5SUM upstream package : c2d0b0aa0772001e21769e676180937b

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

rpmlint pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc18.src.rpm

pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polgalois -> megalopolis, Galois
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


rpmlint pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc18.noarch.rpm

pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvents -> re solvents, re-solvents, resolves
pari-galdata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polgalois -> megalopolis, Galois
pari-galdata.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.


See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

---------------------------------------------------------------

rpmlint spelling check should be ignored, and like pari-elldata,
shared ownership of %{_datadir}/pari is justified to avoid
cyclic dependencies.

I consider the package approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pari-galdata
Short Description: PARI/GP Computer Algebra System Galois resolvents
Owners: pghmcfc
Branches: f16 f17 el5 el6

Git done (by process-git-requests).

pari-galdata-20080411-3.el6,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pari-galdata-20080411-3.el6,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el6

pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc16,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc16,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc16

pari-galdata-20080411-3.el5.1,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el5.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pari-galdata-20080411-3.el5.1,pari-elldata-20120415-5.el5.1

pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc17,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc17,pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc17

pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc16, pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

pari-galdata-20080411-3.fc17, pari-elldata-20120415-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

pari-galdata-20080411-3.el5.1, pari-elldata-20120415-5.el5.1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

pari-galdata-20080411-3.el6, pari-elldata-20120415-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Paulo, would it be possible for you to review the pari-galpol package (Bug #1080062), which is used by the test suite for pari 2.7.0?