Bug 1336005 - Review Request: gap-pkg-resclasses - Set-theoretic computations with Residue Classes
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-resclasses - Set-theoretic computations with Residue ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Rosser
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-05-13 19:27 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2016-06-18 18:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-18 18:42:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rosser.bjr: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2016-05-13 19:27:58 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-resclasses/gap-pkg-resclasses.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-resclasses/gap-pkg-resclasses-4.4.2-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: ResClasses is a GAP package for set-theoretic computations with residue classes of the integers and a couple of other rings. The class of sets which ResClasses can deal with includes the open and the closed sets in the topology on the respective ring which is induced by taking the set of all residue classes as a basis, as far as the usual restrictions imposed by the finiteness of computing resources permit this.

Comment 1 Ben Rosser 2016-06-02 01:26:19 UTC
Also happy to review, any chance you could take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888? (This depends on 1334887).

Comment 2 Ben Rosser 2016-06-03 00:40:43 UTC
Package looks good to me, but upstream has released 4.5 since this ticket was filed; could you update the spec and then I'll re-review?

Comment 3 Jerry James 2016-06-03 03:32:13 UTC
Well, that was sneaky of upstream to release a new version so quickly. :-)  Thanks, Ben.  Here are the new URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-resclasses/gap-pkg-resclasses.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-resclasses/gap-pkg-resclasses-4.5.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Comment 4 Ben Rosser 2016-06-04 01:58:32 UTC
The package is approved, but since the full text of the license is not available, you should query upstream about including it if you haven't already.

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]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/1336005-gap-
     pkg-resclasses/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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).
[x]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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-resclasses-4.5.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-resclasses-4.5.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US finiteness -> definiteness, fineness, finickiness
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/resclasses/doc/resclaux.xml
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/resclasses/doc/resclassesbib.xml
gap-pkg-resclasses.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US finiteness -> definiteness, fineness, finickiness
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US finiteness -> definiteness, fineness, finickiness
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/resclasses/doc/resclassesbib.xml
gap-pkg-resclasses.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/resclasses/doc/resclaux.xml
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
gap-pkg-resclasses (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core
    gap-pkg-polycyclic
    gap-pkg-utils



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-resclasses:
    gap-pkg-resclasses



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.gap-system.org/DevelopersPages/StefanKohl/resclasses/resclasses-4.5.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ddd1858b6f18745fb10436a27dad086eb7c07da6f0a5d25238f93724bdd63a25
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddd1858b6f18745fb10436a27dad086eb7c07da6f0a5d25238f93724bdd63a25


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1336005 -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
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 5 Jerry James 2016-06-04 04:30:18 UTC
Thank you for the review, Ben.  I have not contacted upstream about the license issue, but will do so now.

Comment 6 Till Maas 2016-06-04 10:36:07 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gap-pkg-resclasses

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-06-04 19:40:51 UTC
gap-pkg-resclasses-4.5.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-179bd55d5d

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-06-05 20:24:52 UTC
gap-pkg-resclasses-4.5.0-1.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-2016-179bd55d5d

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-06-18 18:42:54 UTC
gap-pkg-resclasses-4.5.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.