Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-congruence/gap-pkg-congruence.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-congruence/gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The Congruence package provides functions to construct several types of canonical congruence subgroups in SL_2(Z), and also intersections of a finite number of such subgroups. Furthermore, it implements the algorithm for generating Farey symbols for congruence subgroups and using them to produce a system of independent generators for these subgroups.
Just to mention that when you have multiple subpackages you can include them all in a single package. E.g., you could make gap-pkgs which includes all gap packages.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-congruence/GPL; there is a bug report on this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095 Recommendation would be to notify upstream to correct. It isn't a blocker. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gbcox/bugzilla_fedora_review/1228449 -gap-pkg-congruence/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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. [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]: 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: [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: gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm gap-pkg-congruence.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-congruence.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-congruence/GPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gap-pkg-congruence.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-congruence.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-congruence/GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- gap-pkg-congruence (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/update-gap-workspace gap-core Provides -------- gap-pkg-congruence: gap-pkg-congruence Source checksums ---------------- http://www.gap-system.org/pub/gap/gap4/tar.bz2/packages/congruence-1.1.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e223fa87c9f5b23e769a9d1df57967a43bfcdeda3ee16df96df78b6bed4c59e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e223fa87c9f5b23e769a9d1df57967a43bfcdeda3ee16df96df78b6bed4c59e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1228449 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #1) > Just to mention that when you have multiple subpackages you can include them > all in a single package. E.g., you could make gap-pkgs which includes all > gap packages. That would be nice. :-) Unfortunately, each of the subpackages has a different upstream. I could still draw from the collection of these things hosted on gap-system.org, but auditing has found multiple license and copyright issues in that collection, so I have been forced to submit them one at a time so they can be checked individually. (In fact, there are at least 2 packages in GAP's big collection that will never be part of Fedora, due to license problems and the seeming inability of their upstreams to deal with the problem.)
(In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #2) > Issues: > ======= > - E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-congruence/GPL; there > is a bug report on this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095 > Recommendation would be to notify upstream to correct. It isn't a > blocker. Yes, this has been a common theme with these packages. I think the various upstreams are all copying their license file from a common source. I will notify upstream of the issue. So ... I don't see any blocking issues mentioned. Does that mean you approve this package? Thanks for the review!
So ... I don't see any blocking issues mentioned. Does that mean you approve this package? Yes, forgot to reset the flag. Sorry about that!
No problem at all. Thank you again for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gap-pkg-congruence Short Description: Congruence subgroups of SL(2,Integers) Upstream URL: http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~alexk/congruence/ Owners: jjames Branches: f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc22
gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
gap-pkg-congruence-1.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.