Bug 1088696 - Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
Summary: Review Request: octave-ncarray - Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional a...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: José Matos
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-04-17 02:39 UTC by Orion Poplawski
Modified: 2014-05-29 20:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-29 20:45:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jamatos: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Orion Poplawski 2014-04-17 02:39:35 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/octave-ncarray.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/octave-ncarray-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Access a single or a collection of NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6747949

Comment 1 Orion Poplawski 2014-05-07 21:42:21 UTC
* Wed May 7 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> 1.0.3-1
- Update to 1.0.3

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/octave-ncarray.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 2 José Matos 2014-05-17 10:06:05 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


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

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.
[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
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.38 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.38
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.38
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s): /home/jamatos/tmp/inbox/1088696-octave-ncarray/results/octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
 # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '20', 'install', '/home/jamatos/tmp/inbox/1088696-octave-ncarray/results/octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts']
Error: Package: octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch (/octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch)
           Requires: octave-netcdf
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
Error: Package: octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch (/octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch)
           Requires: octave-statistics
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          octave-ncarray-1.0.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
octave-ncarray.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
octave-ncarray.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
octave-ncarray.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
octave-ncarray.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
octave-ncarray.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Requires
--------
octave-ncarray (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    octave
    octave(api)
    octave-netcdf
    octave-statistics



Provides
--------
octave-ncarray:
    octave-ncarray



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/ncarray-1.0.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a71a53386cdadaee8cf620d9d6d96e8404198d10da05150ed93d1b1d609b37fc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a71a53386cdadaee8cf620d9d6d96e8404198d10da05150ed93d1b1d609b37fc


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1088696
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Comment 3 José Matos 2014-05-17 10:12:34 UTC
I placed the review text above and I have the short here because, at least to me, it is easier to read.

The problems with installation above are due to me using F-20 as the build root and octave-netcdf is not available there. On the other hand octave-statistics it is still in review and there was no explicit dependency between both reviews. I will take it and fix this issue. :-)

Regarding the second issue, COPYING is packaged but not marked as %doc and the guidelines imply, as far as I read it, that it _must_ be done.

Since you are the responsible for most of the octave guidelines I trust on this issue to fix it or to take any other action about it.

This package is APPROVED. (sorry I did not meant to shout. :-) )

Comment 4 Orion Poplawski 2014-05-18 02:41:00 UTC
Thanks for the review.  I'll add COPYING to %doc.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-ncarry
Short Description: Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
Upstream URL: http://octave.sourceforge.net/ncarry
Owners: orion
Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 5 José Matos 2014-05-18 11:09:37 UTC
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #4)
> Thanks for the review.  I'll add COPYING to %doc.

Glad to be of help. If you have other octave packages reviews place me in the cc and I will do the review.

Thank you for your work with octave, it is appreciated. :-)

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-05-19 12:07:48 UTC
WARNING: Ticket is not assigned to anyone.
WARNING: Requested package name octave-ncarry doesn't match bug summary
octave-ncarray 

Please correct.

Comment 7 Orion Poplawski 2014-05-19 15:04:18 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-ncarray
Short Description: Access NetCDF files as a multi-dimensional array
Upstream URL: http://octave.sourceforge.net/ncarry
Owners: orion
Branches: epel7
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-05-19 15:16:01 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Orion Poplawski 2014-05-19 16:30:19 UTC
Checked in and built, thanks.


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