Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-inline.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Functionality to dynamically define R functions and S4 methods with inlined C, C++ or Fortran code supporting .C and .Call calling conventions. Fedora Account System Username: ellert
I have a couple of questions. Please see below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ---> This needs to be checked. - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the spec file ... - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R ---> I think it might make more sense to use BR:R-devel instead of R-core-devel .. Any specific reason for using R-devel? - The package has the standard %install section. Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R ---> Can you add this section to the spec? Or, has it been intentionally left out? ===== 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]: 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. ---> Not included in upstream tarball. Not in package. [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/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305334-R-inline/licensecheck.txt ---> No issues. [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. [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]: 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]: 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 R: [x]: Package requires R-core. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/inline_0.3.14.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ---> This is a local issue. I have downloaded the tarball subsequently. $ wget ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/inline_0.3.14.tar.gz --2016-02-10 23:12:40-- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/inline_0.3.14.tar.gz => ‘inline_0.3.14.tar.gz’ Resolving cran.r-project.org (cran.r-project.org)... 137.208.57.37 Connecting to cran.r-project.org (cran.r-project.org)|137.208.57.37|:21... connected. Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in! ==> SYST ... done. ==> PWD ... done. ==> TYPE I ... done. ==> CWD (1) /pub/R/contrib/main ... done. ==> SIZE inline_0.3.14.tar.gz ... 18002 ==> PASV ... done. ==> RETR inline_0.3.14.tar.gz ... done. Length: 18002 (18K) (unauthoritative) 100%[===================================================================================================================================================>] 18,002 --.-K/s in 0.1s 2016-02-10 23:12:42 (157 KB/s) - ‘inline_0.3.14.tar.gz’ saved [18002] [?]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> This is fine. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ---> noarch [x]: %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]: 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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 0.3.14, packaged version is 0.3.14 ===== 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 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305334-R-inline/results/R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/root/ --releasever 23 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305334-R-inline/results/R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.noarch.rpm R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.src.rpm R-inline.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined R-inline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined R-inline.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/inline_0.3.14.tar.gz <urlopen error ftp error: timeout('timed out',)> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- R-inline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-core Provides -------- R-inline: R-inline Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1305334 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > I have a couple of questions. Please see below. Many thanks for reviewing. I will try to answer your questions. > Issues: > ======= > - Package installs properly. > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > ---> This needs to be checked. For me this package installs correctly when running the installation test in fedora-review. The review.txt file contains the line: [x]: Package installs properly. So I am not sure why you got an error. This is a noarch package, so it should work. For non-noarch packages there is a known bug in fedora-review that causes the installation test to fail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264803 It has been fixed upstream, but the fix has not been released in a package update yet. This affects the other 3 packages, but for me the installation test works for this one. > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION > > ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the > spec file ... DESCRIPTION should not be %doc, see e.g. the templates in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R This is fedora-review complaining about something it shouldn't. I think this is fedora-review not keeping up with changes to the guidelines. In the old guidelines (I don't remember when the change happened - but it was quite a long time ago now) the DESCRIPTION file was marked as %doc. > - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. > Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex) > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > ---> I think it might make more sense to use BR:R-devel instead of > R-core-devel .. Any specific reason for using R-devel? R-devel is an empty package, which requires R-core-devel and R-java-devel. There is no java needed for building this package. The only thing you "gain" from using R-devel is to have a lot of java packages installed in the build root for no benefit and making the build time in koji longer. > - The package has the standard %install section. > Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > ---> Can you add this section to the spec? Or, has it been intentionally > left out? This is a "BuildArch: noarch" package. So there is no compilation done during the build. This means that there are no .o or .so files created that should be removed. So the "standard removal" would do nothing. You can also see in the build.log the line * checking if this is a source package ... OK If there were files present that should have been removed, this line would not say "OK" but "NOTE" and then list all the offending files. > ===== SHOULD items ===== > Generic: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint This is a consequence of the installation failing. Since the package could not be installed in the mock buildroot, rpmlint could not run on the installed packages. You do have the rpmlint results from running on the package files though: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
(In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #2) > > For me this package installs correctly when running the installation test in > fedora-review. The review.txt file contains the line: > > [x]: Package installs properly. > > So I am not sure why you got an error. Check the results/root.log file in your review directory. What follows after the line: INFO backend.py:133: installing package(s): <review-dir>/results/R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION > > ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the > spec file ... As Mattias said DESCRIPTION should not be marked as documentation because it possible to install a package without documentation (passing --excludedocs while installing with rpm) while that file is required for the R package to be properly installed. That was the rationale for excluding the DESCRIPTION file from %doc.
(In reply to José Matos from comment #4) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > > > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION > > > > ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the > > spec file ... > > As Mattias said DESCRIPTION should not be marked as documentation because it > possible to install a package without documentation (passing --excludedocs > while installing with rpm) while that file is required for the R package to > be properly installed. > > That was the rationale for excluding the DESCRIPTION file from %doc. I did *not* want it to be labeled as %doc. What I meant to say was "fedora-review warning was bogus". It was clear to me when I wrote that comment. But, as I read it now, I realize how it sounds! :(
(In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #2) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > > I have a couple of questions. Please see below. > > Many thanks for reviewing. I will try to answer your questions. > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - Package installs properly. > > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > > > ---> This needs to be checked. > > For me this package installs correctly when running the installation test in > fedora-review. The review.txt file contains the line: > > [x]: Package installs properly. > > So I am not sure why you got an error. > > This is a noarch package, so it should work. For non-noarch packages there > is a known bug in fedora-review that causes the installation test to fail: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264803 > > It has been fixed upstream, but the fix has not been released in a package > update yet. This affects the other 3 packages, but for me the installation > test works for this one. > I have since managed to install it. No issues here. $ rpm -qa R-* R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.noarch R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc24.x86_64 R-core-3.2.3-2.fc23.x86_64 $ rpmlint R-inline R-inline.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION > > > > ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the > > spec file ... > > DESCRIPTION should not be %doc, see e.g. the templates in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > This is fedora-review complaining about something it shouldn't. I think this > is fedora-review not keeping up with changes to the guidelines. In the old > guidelines (I don't remember when the change happened - but it was quite a > long time ago now) the DESCRIPTION file was marked as %doc. > Yeah ... See comment #5. Comment fail! > > - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. > > Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex) > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > > > ---> I think it might make more sense to use BR:R-devel instead of > > R-core-devel .. Any specific reason for using R-devel? > > R-devel is an empty package, which requires R-core-devel and R-java-devel. > There is no java needed for building this package. The only thing you "gain" > from using R-devel is to have a lot of java packages installed in the build > root for no benefit and making the build time in koji longer. > Sounds good to me. I was just checking if using the meta package would have been better. > > - The package has the standard %install section. > > Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so. > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > > > ---> Can you add this section to the spec? Or, has it been intentionally > > left out? > > This is a "BuildArch: noarch" package. So there is no compilation done > during the build. This means that there are no .o or .so files created that > should be removed. So the "standard removal" would do nothing. > > You can also see in the build.log the line > > * checking if this is a source package ... OK > > If there were files present that should have been removed, this line would > not say "OK" but "NOTE" and then list all the offending files. > Yes. That looks good. > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > > Note: Mock build failed > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint > > This is a consequence of the installation failing. Since the package could > not be installed in the mock buildroot, rpmlint could not run on the > installed packages. > You do have the rpmlint results from running on the package files though: > > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Yes. I have since installed it without problems manually. fedora-review just seems to be unable to install for whatever reason.
I have nothing more to complain about! :) Package APPROVED.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > I did *not* want it to be labeled as %doc. > > What I meant to say was "fedora-review warning was bogus". It was clear to > me when I wrote that comment. But, as I read it now, I realize how it > sounds! :( I am sorry if I sound it otherwise, my comment was meant to be constructive. :-) And we all know how written communication is poor medium at conveying information. With that said I would like to thank you for addressing this review since R-cpp is a direct dependency of more than 500 R packages and some of my R packages are starting to depend on it. So I am glad that this is going forward. :-D
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/R-inline
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23 R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5c7fbfc747
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22 R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b3d572c4db
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b3d572c4db
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5c7fbfc747
(In reply to José Matos from comment #8) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > > I did *not* want it to be labeled as %doc. > > > > What I meant to say was "fedora-review warning was bogus". It was clear to > > me when I wrote that comment. But, as I read it now, I realize how it > > sounds! :( > > I am sorry if I sound it otherwise, my comment was meant to be constructive. > :-) > > And we all know how written communication is poor medium at conveying > information. > > With that said I would like to thank you for addressing this review since > R-cpp is a direct dependency of more than 500 R packages and some of my R > packages are starting to depend on it. So I am glad that this is going > forward. :-D No worries. Certainly appreciate the input!
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el7 R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el7 R-littler-0.3.0-1.el7 R-inline-0.3.14-1.el7 R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9ad155732b
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el6 R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el6 R-littler-0.3.0-1.el6 R-inline-0.3.14-1.el6 R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-359b7ddb9a
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el6, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el6, R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el6, R-inline-0.3.14-1.el6, R-littler-0.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-359b7ddb9a
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el7, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el7, R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el7, R-inline-0.3.14-1.el7, R-littler-0.3.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9ad155732b
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el7, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el7, R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el7, R-inline-0.3.14-1.el7, R-littler-0.3.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.el6, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.el6, R-highlight-0.4.7-1.el6, R-inline-0.3.14-1.el6, R-littler-0.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.