Bug 1127173 (liborigin2) - Review Request: liborigin2 - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files
Summary: Review Request: liborigin2 - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files
Alias: liborigin2
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerry James
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-08-06 10:27 UTC by Christian Dersch
Modified: 2014-12-20 08:46 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: liborigin2-2.0.0-5.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-12-20 08:32:54 UTC
Type: ---
loganjerry: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christian Dersch 2014-08-06 10:27:38 UTC
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2.spec
SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2-2.0.0-3.fc20.src.rpm
Description: liborigin2 is a library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files.
Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

Issues: fedora-review shows no obvious issues.

Some notes: 
- Upstream name is liborigin, but there is already a liborigin package in Fedora containing an older incompatible version of liborigin. The 2.0.0 release of liborigin was known as liborigin2 before. To avoid a conflict with the existing liborigin package I named this one liborigin2.

- There was a liborigin2 package some years ago http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/liborigin2.git/ But the latest changes are from 2011

Thanks for review in advance!

Comment 1 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2014-08-28 11:18:53 UTC

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-08-29 01:06:37 UTC
%package	doc
Summary:	Documentation for %{name}
Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
BuildArch:	noarch


%package	doc
Summary:	Documentation for %{name}
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
BuildArch:	noarch

Comment 3 Christian Dersch 2014-08-29 08:04:06 UTC
Oh yes, thank you :) Will be fixed soon, but I'm still waiting for a detailed review...

Comment 4 Michael Schwendt 2014-08-29 10:49:54 UTC
> %package	doc
> Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Even better, drop that dependency. This documentation package contains just HTML files, which can be displayed with any HTML viewer. There's no rationale why the package should drag in the base library and it dependencies. It doesn't need them at install-time and not at run-time either.

Comment 5 Christian Dersch 2014-08-30 18:47:47 UTC
Thank you for your notes! Fixed it.

Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2.spec
SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/packages/liborigin2-2.0.0-4.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 6 Christian Dersch 2014-09-06 09:49:39 UTC
Still waiting for a review :(

Comment 7 Jerry James 2014-09-26 19:57:20 UTC
Package Review

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

- All of the files identify themselves as having the GPLv2+ license, except
  for tree.hh, which says it is covered under the GPL license, version 2 or
  3.  I think the license should read "GPLv2 or GPLv3", rather than just
  "GPLv2".  That is functionally equivalent to "GPLv2+" at the moment, but
  would be wrong if a GPLv4 is ever released.
- The license file is not installed if liborigin2-doc is installed by itself.
- Please use the %license macro for the license file, instead of %doc.  This
  only applies to Fedora 21 and Rawhide.  For Fedora 19 and 20 and EPEL,
  continue to use %doc.
- The doc package does not own %{_docdir}/name, but since it can be installed
  without the main package, it needs to do so.
- If you look at the build log on a 64-bit system, you'll see a number of
  warnings that look like this:

/builddir/build/BUILD/liborigin/OriginDefaultParser.cpp:307:55: warning: format '%d' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'std::vector<Origin::SpreadSheet>::size_type {aka long unsigned int}' [-Wformat=]
  fprintf(debug," nr_spreads = %d\n",speadSheets.size());

  This means that a 64-bit value is being pushed onto the stack, but because
  of the format string, printf is only going to look at 32 bits.  This can
  cause erroneous output.  Those format strings should be patched to replace
  "%d" with "%zu" in each case.
- It looks like upstream is not prepared for %{?_smp_mflags}.  I see all of
  the source files being compiled multiple times, and the documentation
  generated multiple times as well.
- FORMAT is ISO-8859-5 (I think; it mentions Russian, which would be -5).
  Please convert it to UTF-8.
- The macro %{_libdir} appears in a comment on line 51 of the spec file.
  Either double the % sign (%%{_libdir}) or just write "_libdir".
- Please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning from rpmlint.

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/liborigin2
[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 51200 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 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 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

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

[-]: 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
[?]: 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
[!]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

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

Checking: liborigin2-2.0.0-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm
liborigin2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/liborigin2/FORMAT
liborigin2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opj2dat-2.0.0
liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
liborigin2.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
liborigin2.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 18)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint liborigin2-doc liborigin2 liborigin2-devel
liborigin2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/liborigin2/FORMAT
liborigin2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opj2dat-2.0.0
liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

liborigin2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

liborigin2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

liborigin2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):




Source checksums
http://sourceforge.net/projects/liborigin/files/liborigin/2.0/liborigin-2.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ccd3771ec2437af6603ab449c34dc04876951144e835a2ef1882ac16a7094304
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd3771ec2437af6603ab449c34dc04876951144e835a2ef1882ac16a7094304

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1127173 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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

Comment 8 Christian Dersch 2014-09-26 21:37:44 UTC
Thank you very much for assigning and performing your detailed review :) I will work on this next week.


Comment 9 Christian Dersch 2014-10-19 15:43:32 UTC
Still working on this, takes a bit longer due to a lack of time :(

Comment 10 Jerry James 2014-10-21 02:00:52 UTC
No worries.  I'm in no rush.  Let me know when you are ready.

Comment 12 Jerry James 2014-12-08 19:21:05 UTC
Okay, this looks good.  I suggest preserving the timestamp on FORMAT by inserting this command between the iconv and mv invocations:


but you can do that when you import that package.  No need to hold things up for such a minor issue.

Also, since there was a liborigin2 package in the past, be sure to follow the steps here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package

This package is APPROVED.

Comment 13 Christian Dersch 2014-12-08 19:42:23 UTC
Thank you for your review :)

Comment 14 Christian Dersch 2014-12-08 19:45:21 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: liborigin2
New Branches: devel f20 f21
Owners: lupinix

Info: liborigin2 existed some time ago but retired. Last time packaged in f15.

Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-08 20:06:43 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2014-12-08 21:35:27 UTC
liborigin2-2.0.0-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2014-12-08 21:37:15 UTC
liborigin2-2.0.0-5.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2014-12-12 04:04:25 UTC
liborigin2-2.0.0-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2014-12-20 08:32:54 UTC
liborigin2-2.0.0-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2014-12-20 08:46:04 UTC
liborigin2-2.0.0-5.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.