Bug 1000445 - Review Request: tralics - LaTeX to XML translator
Summary: Review Request: tralics - LaTeX to XML translator
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Björn Esser (besser82)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-08-23 13:04 UTC by Christopher Meng
Modified: 2014-05-24 23:26 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: tralics-2.15.1-3.fc19
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-24 23:25:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
besser82: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christopher Meng 2013-08-23 13:04:18 UTC
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/tralics.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/ttralics-2.15.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Tralics is a free software whose purpose is to convert a LaTeX document into an XML file. It is used since 2002 for instance to produce the Inria's annual activitity report.
Fedora Account System Username: cicku

Comment 1 Mario Blättermann 2013-08-25 16:09:09 UTC
There's a typo in your srpm link. Remove the first "t" and it works.

Comment 2 Michel Zou 2013-09-30 20:52:14 UTC
Hi,

I'd rather put .plt template files in /usr/share rather than /etc as they're not really config files:

At least debian puts it there:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/alpha/tralics/filelist

Archlinux too:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tr/tralics/PKGBUILD

And there's a findtralics.cmake which already relies on this:
https://svn.openturns.org/openturns-doc/trunk/cmake/FindTralics.cmake

Regards.

Comment 3 Christopher Meng 2013-10-07 13:25:02 UTC
Yeah openturns caught my eyes~

Fixed.

Spec URL: http://cicku.me/tralics.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/tralics-2.15.1-2.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 4 Björn Esser (besser82) 2013-10-22 15:43:30 UTC
taken  ;)

Comment 5 Björn Esser (besser82) 2013-10-23 09:24:27 UTC
===== Review report for tralics-2.15.1-2 =====

Package has issues.  :(


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

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


Issues
======

- rpmlint shows 'file-not-utf8'
  /usr/share/doc/tralics/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.txt
  /usr/share/doc/tralics/ChangeLog

  ---> please convert them to valid UTF-8 encoding.  To get some idea
       which encoding is used on these files, you may use `file -i $file`.
       I recommend to use this scriptlet, which preserves timestamps, for
       conversion within %prep:

        for _file in ...your filelist here...
        do
          iconv -f ...encoding of files... -t utf-8	\
            ${_file} > ${_file}.conv &&			\
	    touch -r ${_file} ${_file}.conv &&		\
	    mv -f ${_file}.conv ${_file}
        done


- Build-flags MUST be exported / used properly.

  ---> please make sure to pass LDFLAGS to Makefile and verify they
       are applied properly when linking the objects to exec-ELF.


===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "CeCILL", "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1000445-tralics/licensecheck.txt

     ---> License-tag is fine.  :)

[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

     ---> applicable LDFLAGS are not exported properly and
          thus aren't used.

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     ---> issues are present.  :(

[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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.

     ---> The meaning of `large` can be argued about, but I usually
          recommend to split-off stuff within %{_datadir} into some
          noarch'ed sub-package.  Just a hint, NOT a FAIL.

[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tralics-2.15.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          tralics-2.15.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
tralics.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US activitity -> activity, activities, creativity
tralics.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tralics/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.txt
tralics.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tralics/ChangeLog
tralics.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tralics
tralics.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US activitity -> activity, activities, creativity
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

---> convert all files to valid UTF-8 encoding



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint tralics
tralics.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US activitity -> activity, activities, creativity
tralics.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tralics/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.txt
tralics.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tralics/ChangeLog
tralics.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tralics
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

---> convert all files to valid UTF-8 encoding


Requires
--------
tralics (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
tralics:
    tralics
    tralics(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/marelle/tralics/src/tralics-src-2.15.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9aac26edf2c247215591929b278485288689fa50d3c11d7ee125b362683d6701
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9aac26edf2c247215591929b278485288689fa50d3c11d7ee125b362683d6701


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1000445
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG


===== Additional comments =====

- I'd suggest to split all files inside %{_datadir} to a noarch'ed -data
  sub-package and Requires this by main-package.  Make sure to include
  proper LICENSE into the -data sub-package.


===== Solution =====

NOT APPROVED -- Please fix those issues and I'll run another review on the updated package.

Comment 7 Björn Esser (besser82) 2014-05-19 09:43:48 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "CeCILL", "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1000445-tralics/licensecheck.txt

     ---> license-tag is fine.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.

     ---> please see my additional comments below

[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tralics-2.15.1-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          tralics-2.15.1-3.fc21.src.rpm
tralics.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tralics
tralics.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 19)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

---> fix that tabs-and-spaces-issue during import, please.



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint tralics
tralics.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tralics
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
tralics (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
tralics:
    tralics
    tralics(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/marelle/tralics/src/tralics-src-2.15.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9aac26edf2c247215591929b278485288689fa50d3c11d7ee125b362683d6701
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9aac26edf2c247215591929b278485288689fa50d3c11d7ee125b362683d6701


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1000445
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG


===== Additional comments =====

- I'd suggest to split all files inside %{_datadir} to a noarch'ed -data
  sub-package and Requires this by main-package.  Make sure to include
  proper LICENSE into the -data sub-package.

- I'd *strongly* recommend to include the `Copyright`-file from src-tar's
  top-level-dir into the pkg's %doc.


===== Solution =====

APPROVED!!! -- Please fix those minor issues during import.

Comment 8 Christopher Meng 2014-05-19 10:12:28 UTC
Fine.

I will fix them ASAP.

Thank you!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: tralics
Short Description: LaTeX to XML translator
Upstream URL: http://www-sop.inria.fr/apics/tralics/
Owners: cicku
Branches: f20 f19

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-05-19 12:03:13 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-05-21 01:22:09 UTC
tralics-2.15.1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tralics-2.15.1-3.fc19

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-05-21 01:22:18 UTC
tralics-2.15.1-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tralics-2.15.1-3.fc20

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-05-21 23:28:41 UTC
tralics-2.15.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2014-05-24 23:25:14 UTC
tralics-2.15.1-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2014-05-24 23:26:29 UTC
tralics-2.15.1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.