Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-openmath/gap-pkg-openmath.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-openmath/gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package provides an OpenMath phrasebook for GAP. It allows GAP users to import and export mathematical objects encoded in OpenMath, for the purpose of exchanging them with other OpenMath-enabled applications. For details about the OpenMath encoding, see http://www.openmath.org/.
Some issues/remarks: - Why do you have some documentation in /usr/lib/gap/pkg/openmath/doc and some in /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-openmath/? Does gap expect documentation in /usr/lib/gap/? Why not put everything in /usr/share/doc? - The source files don't have a valid copying permission statement (i.e. a statement saying 'This file is licensed under GPLv2+') which is not perfect but not a blocker. rpmlint: gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-openmath/GPL --> This should be reported upstream. gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib --> OK. Other than that, the package looks good. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/till/fedora-review/1332605-gap-pkg-openmath/licensecheck.txt Remark: The source files don't have a valid copying permission statement (i.e. a statement saying 'This file is licensed under GPLv2+') which is not perfect but not a blocker. [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 20480 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. ===== 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-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-openmath/GPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-openmath/GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- gap-pkg-openmath (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-core gap-pkg-io Provides -------- gap-pkg-openmath: gap-pkg-openmath Source checksums ---------------- http://www.gap-system.org/pub/gap/gap4/tar.bz2/packages/openmath-11.3.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b2a91bbdbcf2afcfbdf4138cfca9748222b46d65cbd2a8f202c42a4d4c7e379 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b2a91bbdbcf2afcfbdf4138cfca9748222b46d65cbd2a8f202c42a4d4c7e379 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1332605 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 Till Hofmann from comment #1) > - Why do you have some documentation in /usr/lib/gap/pkg/openmath/doc and > some in /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-openmath/? Does gap expect documentation in > /usr/lib/gap/? Why not put everything in /usr/share/doc? Yes, gap has an online documentation browser, which expects to find documentation alongside the actual code (actually, wherever PackageInfo.g says the documentation is located). The files in /usr/share/doc are those that the online documentation browser would not look for. > - The source files don't have a valid copying permission statement (i.e. a > statement saying 'This file is licensed under GPLv2+') which is not perfect > but not a blocker. I'm afraid that the gap community in general is a little bit sloppy about license notifications, although there are a handful of gap package authors who understand the issues involved and are careful about license statements. > rpmlint: > gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-openmath/GPL > --> This should be reported upstream. Okay, I will do so. Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > > - Why do you have some documentation in /usr/lib/gap/pkg/openmath/doc and > > some in /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-openmath/? Does gap expect documentation in > > /usr/lib/gap/? Why not put everything in /usr/share/doc? > > Yes, gap has an online documentation browser, which expects to find > documentation alongside the actual code (actually, wherever PackageInfo.g > says the documentation is located). The files in /usr/share/doc are those > that the online documentation browser would not look for. > That makes sense, so this is okay. > > rpmlint: > > gap-pkg-openmath.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > > /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-openmath/GPL > > --> This should be reported upstream. > > Okay, I will do so. Thank you for the review! Thanks for packaging! Approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gap-pkg-openmath
gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4f1b02380b
gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-4f1b02380b
gap-pkg-openmath-11.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.