Bug 1002170 - Review Request: morfologik-stemming - Morfologik stemming library
Summary: Review Request: morfologik-stemming - Morfologik stemming library
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Simacek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1002165 1002166
Blocks: solr 1051536
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2013-08-28 14:41 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2014-01-24 07:45 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: morfologik-stemming-1.8.3-1.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-01-24 07:45:07 UTC
msimacek: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2013-08-28 14:41:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/morfologik-stemming-1.5.5-1.fc19.src.rpm
Morfologik provides high quality lemmatisation for the Polish language,
along with tools for building and using byte-based finite state automata.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Comment 5 Michael Simacek 2014-01-15 16:18:34 UTC
Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/msimacek/1002170-morfologik-
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 30720 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

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

[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in morfologik-
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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
[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
[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.

[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

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

[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.

Checking: morfologik-stemming-1.8.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
morfologik-stemming.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lemmatisation -> solemnization, sensationalism, emasculation
morfologik-stemming.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic
morfologik-stemming.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lemmatisation -> solemnization, sensationalism, emasculation
morfologik-stemming.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint morfologik-stemming-javadoc morfologik-stemming
morfologik-stemming.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lemmatisation -> solemnization, sensationalism, emasculation
morfologik-stemming.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

morfologik-stemming-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

morfologik-stemming (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/morfologik/morfologik-stemming/archive/1.8.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 44748d5e46756efa1cc123401f816bbc6b07ab5b2b7e585d157e292dff2d9ac7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44748d5e46756efa1cc123401f816bbc6b07ab5b2b7e585d157e292dff2d9ac7

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1002170
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6410071

Looks ok to me. APPROVED

Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2014-01-15 16:22:11 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: morfologik-stemming
Short Description: Morfologik stemming library
Owners: gil
Branches: f20
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-15 17:35:15 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-01-15 19:35:26 UTC
morfologik-stemming-1.8.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-01-16 06:59:35 UTC
morfologik-stemming-1.8.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-01-24 07:45:07 UTC
morfologik-stemming-1.8.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

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