Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-littler.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A scripting and command-line front-end is provided by 'r' (aka 'littler') as a lightweight binary wrapper around the GNU R language and environment for statistical computing and graphics. While R can be used in batch mode, the r binary adds full support for both 'shebang'-style scripting (i.e. using a hash-mark-exclamation-path expression as the first line in scripts) as well as command-line use in standard Unix pipelines. In other words, r provides the R language without the environment. Fedora Account System Username: ellert
I had in my list to package litter so I will take the review. :-)
TLDR; the package is APPROVED. :-) My only nitpick is with the summary https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#summary IMHO the summary should not start with the name of the package as it is already implied. I admit though that this is a personal preference so it is up to you. :-) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: The package has the standard %install section. ===== 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 R -littler-debuginfo [x]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 0.3.0, packaged version is 0.3.0 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm R-littler-examples-0.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm R-littler-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm R-littler.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C littler: R at the Command-Line via 'r' R-littler.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-littler.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/R/library/littler/NAMESPACE R-littler-examples.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-littler-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation R-littler-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/R-littler-0.3.0/littler/src/littler.c R-littler.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C littler: R at the Command-Line via 'r' 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: R-littler-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm R-littler-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/R-littler-0.3.0/littler/src/littler.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory R-littler-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/R-littler-0.3.0/littler/src/littler.c R-littler.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C littler: R at the Command-Line via 'r' R-littler.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-littler.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/R/library/littler/NAMESPACE R-littler-examples.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-littler-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- R-littler-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-littler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-core(x86-64) libR.so()(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libtre.so.5()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) R-littler-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/r R-littler(x86-64) Provides -------- R-littler-debuginfo: R-littler-debuginfo R-littler-debuginfo(x86-64) R-littler: R-littler R-littler(x86-64) R-littler-examples: R-littler-examples R-littler-examples(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/littler_0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bef162738f46523524b2ef9ad4e7ba86a7138888b93dde3d58eaab49a8ab73d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bef162738f46523524b2ef9ad4e7ba86a7138888b93dde3d58eaab49a8ab73d8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1310453 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Many thanks for the review. I think you forgot to assign the review request ticket to yourself. When I try to request the package to be created in pkgdb it complains "Review not approved by the assignee of the ticket".
I hope you don't mind I assigned the ticket to you. It allowed me to complete the pkgdb new package request. Once again, many thanks.
Thank you for doing that. :-)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/R-littler
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc23 R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc23 R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b55f0bcc50
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc22 R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc22 R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d74f736f60
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.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.fc22, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc22, R-littler-0.3.0-1.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-d74f736f60
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.fc23, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc23, R-littler-0.3.0-1.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-b55f0bcc50
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc22, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc22, R-littler-0.3.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc23, R-Rcpp-0.12.3-3.fc23, R-littler-0.3.0-1.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-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.