Bug 962490

Summary: Review Request: octave-dicom - Dicom processing for Octave
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Mario Ceresa <mrceresa>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Orion Poplawski <orion>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: notting, orion, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: orion: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-07-09 03:06:05 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Description Mario Ceresa 2013-05-13 12:14:53 EDT
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/mrceresa/fedora_medical/master/octave-dicom/octave-dicom.spec
SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/mrceresa/fedora_medical/master/octave-dicom/octave-dicom-0.1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: The Octave-forge Image package provides functions for processing 
Digital communications in medicine (DICOM) files.
Fedora Account System Username: mrceresa

This is an interesting package for fedora-medical because it adds dicom processing capabilities to octave.
Comment 2 Mario Ceresa 2013-05-13 12:31:42 EDT
I have some errors with fedora-review that I'm not sure how to solve:

Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
W: no-documentation
--> Documentation is split between _sharedir/octave/packages/%name/packinfo and _libdir/octave/packages/%name/%target/doc-cache. Not sure which is the best way to pack it.

W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
---> Do I drop the obsolete?

W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
---> Do I need that file or can I rm it?

W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
--> It seems to be related to octave_pkg_preun macro
Comment 3 Orion Poplawski 2013-05-13 12:33:35 EDT
*** Bug 962443 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Mario Ceresa 2013-05-13 12:34:43 EDT
I'm not familiar with octave packages, so probably I'll need your help to polish it a bit!
Comment 5 Orion Poplawski 2013-05-13 12:43:50 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> I have some errors with fedora-review that I'm not sure how to solve:
> 
> Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
> W: no-documentation
> --> Documentation is split between _sharedir/octave/packages/%name/packinfo
> and _libdir/octave/packages/%name/%target/doc-cache. Not sure which is the
> best way to pack it.

You can ignore the warning.

> W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
> ---> Do I drop the obsolete?

Yeah, this can probably be removed at this point.
 
> W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
> E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
> ---> Do I need that file or can I rm it?

You need it - it tells octave to load the package by default on startup.

> W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
> --> It seems to be related to octave_pkg_preun macro

Yeah, you can ignore.  It's a necessary evil.
Comment 7 Mario Ceresa 2013-05-13 17:13:00 EDT
I see no more problems besides the one you just commented on.

Here there are the koji builds:
* f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5375385
* rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5375390
Comment 8 Orion Poplawski 2013-05-13 17:38:53 EDT
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======

- License is GPLv3+ (not GPLv2+)
- No need for rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install  (I'll get that removed from the template)
- Let's filter out the provides with:

# Exclude .oct files from provides
%global __provides_exclude_from ^%{octpkglibdir}/.*\\.oct$

(I'll try to get that into the template)

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /export/home/orion/redhat/octave-dicom-0.1.1/962490-octave-
     dicom/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

===== 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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-dicom-0.1.1-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
octave-dicom.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint octave-dicom
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
octave-dicom.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload
octave-dicom.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
octave-dicom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcruft.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgdcmCommon.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmDICT.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmDSED.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmIOD.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmMSFF.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmjpeg12.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmjpeg16.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libgdcmjpeg8.so.2.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    liboctave.so.1()(64bit)
    liboctinterp.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
    octave
    octave(api)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
octave-dicom:
    _gendicomdict.oct()(64bit)
    dicomdict.oct()(64bit)
    dicominfo.oct()(64bit)
    dicomlookup.oct()(64bit)
    dicomread.oct()(64bit)
    dicomwrite.oct()(64bit)
    octave-dicom
    octave-dicom(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/dicom-0.1.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 692cc509c70e85d94598866190366d0dbc2968bee56fbb998eac940bea62e8fa
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 692cc509c70e85d94598866190366d0dbc2968bee56fbb998eac940bea62e8fa


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 962490 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Comment 10 Orion Poplawski 2013-05-13 18:41:31 EDT
Looks good.  One minor comment - it might be good to comment on the patches in the spec.

Approved.
Comment 11 Mario Ceresa 2013-05-14 05:04:14 EDT
Thanks Orion! I'll comment on the patches before uploading on git
Comment 12 Mario Ceresa 2013-05-14 05:06:30 EDT
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-dicom
Short Description: Dicom processing for Octave
Owners: mrceresa
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC:
Comment 13 Jon Ciesla 2013-05-14 07:16:10 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 14 Mario Ceresa 2013-07-09 03:06:05 EDT
I forgot to close this bug when I created the update for F18. I'll close it now. Thanks again Orion for helping with the review!

Best,

Mario