Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl-3.32-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircrafts Fedora Account System Username: smani
You need resolve two main points before to review this package. First: your 'avl' conflicts with another RETIRED 'avl' package (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/avl.git/). In effect, this issue is also reported in fedora-review output. I don't know if you need to solicit a complete removal of retired package from pkg database or just commit this new 'avl'. Second: source archive does not contain a License file. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl-3.32-2.fc21.src.rpm * Thu Sep 12 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 3.32-2 - Add license file I'll need to look at what the procedure is to resolve the conflict.
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/avl-3.32-3.fc21.src.rpm * Fri Sep 13 2013 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 3.32-3 - Fix license Btw, the discussion concerning the conflict in ongoing here [1]. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189185.html
I've discussed this on IRC today (see below), so the way forward seems to be clear. [16:53] <smani> Hi, I asked on the mailing list what is the way to proceed when there is a package name conflict between a new package and a retired package (see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-September/189185.html). One idea put forward (and the one I would prefer) is to rename the old package. Does anyone know what procedure to follow to carry out that change (if that change is legal according to the guidelines)? [16:57] <rdieter> smani: I'd say review as normal, and just treat it like an unretirement [16:57] <rdieter> *except* extra step to get pkg summary/description changed in pkgdb is desirable [16:59] <smani> rdieter: so basically you would not rename the old package at all, just take over the repo? [17:00] <rdieter> smani: I thought you said the old package is retired [17:00] <rdieter> if so, no need to rename anything [17:00] <rdieter> the history is still there [17:00] <rdieter> for anyone interested... [17:02] <rdieter> smani: make sense? [17:02] <smani> ok, so basically once the package passes review, I file a package change request instead of a new package scm request? [17:02] <rdieter> yeah [17:03] <smani> can I just write "New description" in the change request? [17:03] <rdieter> not sure of change request can handle that or not (or whether special handling would be required) [17:04] <rdieter> I kinda assume the latter, but worth a try [17:04] <smani> ok, I'll give it a try and see what happens :) [17:04] <smani> thanks!
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/avl See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names See comment #4. - License files are included by packager. ===== 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: "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1007541-avl/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 6 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]: 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 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]: 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. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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 (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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: avl-3.32-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm avl-3.32-3.fc21.src.rpm avl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aircrafts -> aircraft, aircraft's, air crafts avl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearization -> militarization, internalization, familiarization avl.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C AVL is a program for the aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircraft avl.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C the lifting surfaces, together with a slender-body model for fuselages and nacelles. avl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avl avl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aircrafts -> aircraft, aircraft's, air crafts avl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearization -> militarization, internalization, familiarization avl.src: E: description-line-too-long C AVL is a program for the aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircraft avl.src: E: description-line-too-long C the lifting surfaces, together with a slender-body model for fuselages and nacelles. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint avl avl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) aircrafts -> aircraft, aircraft's, air crafts avl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearization -> militarization, internalization, familiarization avl.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C AVL is a program for the aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircraft avl.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C the lifting surfaces, together with a slender-body model for fuselages and nacelles. avl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary avl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- avl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0(QUADMATH_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xorg-x11-fonts-misc Provides -------- avl: avl avl(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/avl3.32.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dcc0a6ae7ee2f5b3d6a46e730eecab1a1e2a4472a0cd3314bc7fd464f7e091f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dcc0a6ae7ee2f5b3d6a46e730eecab1a1e2a4472a0cd3314bc7fd464f7e091f0 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 1007541 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
Thanks! According to the IRC discussion (see comment #5), I'm filing a package change request to take over the repo of the retired avl package. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: avl Short Description: Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic analysis of rigid aircrafts New Branches: f19 f20 Owners: smani InitialCC:
Unretired, please take ownership in pkgdb.
Resetting cvs flag.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
What happens with the EPEL branches of the package?
I don't intend to maintain in EPEL. But I guess it is not just possible to just delete them?
avl-3.32-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avl-3.32-3.fc19
avl-3.32-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avl-3.32-3.fc20
avl-3.32-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
avl-3.32-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avl-3.32-4.fc20
avl-3.32-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avl-3.32-4.fc19
avl-3.32-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
avl-3.32-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: avl New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: smani InitialCC: