Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++-0.4.6-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation Fedora Account System Username: smani
*** Bug 1065542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Taken. :)
Ensure LDFLAGS is set properly.
Guess building with CMake is easier than hacking the hand-written makefile... Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++-0.4.6-3.fc21.src.rpm
Why a -libs sub-package? Does binary file not need library to work?
The problem is rather that I forgot the Requires >.< Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++-0.4.6-4.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jun 19 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.4.6-4 - Add missing -libs requires for main package
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #6) > The problem is rather that I forgot the Requires >.< > So better if the single library is packaged with binary file (together with README, LICENSE, NEWS). :) Remember to fix %post/%postun.
Dunno, the library has reasons to live alone (i.e. for the gmsh dependency). Clearly, the argument could be made whether the space saved is worth the effort of shipping lib and binary in separate packages, but many other packages already do it like this.
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #8) > Dunno, the library has reasons to live alone (i.e. for the gmsh dependency). > Clearly, the argument could be made whether the space saved is worth the > effort of shipping lib and binary in separate packages, but many other > packages already do it like this. Honestly, it seems to me a redundant split. Most of base packages are composed by: - binary file - versioned library - manpage file
Okay, fair enough, no strong opinions. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++-0.4.6-5.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jun 19 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.4.6-5 - Merge libs subpackage into main package
- Fix License tag: LBNL BSD - Patch0 is not applied. - You can build a -doc subpackage to include all html documentation, examples, scripts directories and their respective README files. - Perl: [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? Probably it's related to the perl scripts contained in scripts/ directory. I don't know if it's enough add just a 'Requires: perl%{?_isa}', sorry. - manual-page-warning are related to presumed formatting problems of the manpages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5038080 bytes in 282 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [!]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1110945-voro++/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 Perl: [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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 is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5058560 bytes in /usr/share [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: voro++-0.4.6-5.fc21.i686.rpm voro++-devel-0.4.6-5.fc21.i686.rpm voro++-0.4.6-5.fc21.src.rpm voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.i686: W: invalid-license LBNLBSD voro++.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libvoro++.so.0.0.0 exit voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 85: warning: numeric expression expected (got `s') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 100: warning: numeric expression expected (got `o') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 108: warning: numeric expression expected (got `l') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 117: warning: numeric expression expected (got `m') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 123: warning: numeric expression expected (got `n') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 181: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 188: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 193: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 197: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 200: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ headers voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: invalid-license LBNLBSD voro++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.src: W: invalid-license LBNLBSD voro++.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: voro++_virtual-destructor.patch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint voro++ voro++-devel voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.i686: W: invalid-license LBNLBSD voro++.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libvoro++.so.0.0.0 exit voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 85: warning: numeric expression expected (got `s') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 100: warning: numeric expression expected (got `o') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 108: warning: numeric expression expected (got `l') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 117: warning: numeric expression expected (got `m') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 123: warning: numeric expression expected (got `n') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 181: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 188: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 193: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 197: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/voro++.1.gz 200: warning: numeric expression expected (got `x') voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ headers voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: invalid-license LBNLBSD 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- voro++ (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libvoro++.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) voro++-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libvoro++.so.0 voro++(x86-32) Provides -------- voro++: libvoro++.so.0 voro++ voro++(x86-32) voro++-devel: voro++-devel voro++-devel(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://math.lbl.gov/voro++/download/dir/voro++-0.4.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef7970071ee2ce3800daa8723649ca069dc4c71cc25f0f7d22552387f3ea437e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef7970071ee2ce3800daa8723649ca069dc4c71cc25f0f7d22552387f3ea437e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1110945 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
> - Patch0 is not applied. Done by autosetup > - Perl: > [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. > Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo > $version)) missing? I don't think that it is necessary to add Requires or BRs for any files in %doc. Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/voro++-0.4.6-6.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jun 19 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.4.6-6 - Fix license - doc subpackage - Fix manpage formatting
-doc sub-package does not contain any License file.
Argh, sorry! Kinda working on too many package at the same time. Spec and SRPM updated (no release bump).
Package approved. Note: voro++.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: voro++_virtual-destructor.patch voro++.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: voro++_man.patch These warnings are not estimable for me. I opened a bug (bz#1111366). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1110945-voro++/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 3 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 Perl: [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in voro++-doc [ ]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: voro++-0.4.6-6.fc21.i686.rpm voro++-devel-0.4.6-6.fc21.i686.rpm voro++-doc-0.4.6-6.fc21.noarch.rpm voro++-0.4.6-6.fc21.src.rpm voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libvoro++.so.0.0.0 exit voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ headers voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: no-documentation voro++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ documentation voro++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: voro++_virtual-destructor.patch voro++.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: voro++_man.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint voro++-doc voro++ voro++-devel voro++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ documentation voro++-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centroid -> centrist voro++.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libvoro++.so.0.0.0 exit voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C voro++ headers voro++-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US voro -> Moro, Voronezh voro++-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- voro++-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): voro++ (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libvoro++.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) voro++-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libvoro++.so.0 voro++(x86-32) Provides -------- voro++-doc: voro++-doc voro++: libvoro++.so.0 voro++ voro++(x86-32) voro++-devel: voro++-devel voro++-devel(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://math.lbl.gov/voro++/download/dir/voro++-0.4.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef7970071ee2ce3800daa8723649ca069dc4c71cc25f0f7d22552387f3ea437e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef7970071ee2ce3800daa8723649ca069dc4c71cc25f0f7d22552387f3ea437e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1110945 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Thanks again! If you need a review, feel free to ping me. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: voro++ Short Description: Library for 3D computations of the Voronoi tessellation Owners: smani Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20
voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
voro++-0.4.6-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
voro++-0.4.6-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voro++-0.4.6-7.el6
voro++-0.4.6-7.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/voro++-0.4.6-7.el7
voro++-0.4.6-7.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
voro++-0.4.6-7.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
*** Bug 1485034 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***