Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-lucene_parser.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-lucene_parser-1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A library for Lucene-like query syntax parsing Fedora Account System Username: peter
I have a few questions on this one before marking it approved. Mostly I'm concerned that this package and erlang-riak_server are the same package, and this one's version is not listed as the real version. Can you explain these points a bit? 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. [!]: 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. rbarlow: Make sure to add the license macro for the LICENSE file. [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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/review/1336726-erlang- lucene_parser/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/lucene_parser-1/ebin(erlang-riak_search), /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/lucene_parser-1/include(erlang-riak_search), /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/lucene_parser-1(erlang-riak_search) rbarlow: It seems that this package and erlang-riak_search are the same package. Is this redundant? [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. rbarlow: This package's name is lucene_parser, but upstream calls it riak_search. The riak_search package seems to already exist in Fedora. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. rbarlow: See the file conflicts above. [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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [x]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. rbarlow: It looks like you are packaging 2.1.1, but the version is shown as just "1". Shouldn't it be 2.1.1? [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. rbarlow: Can you add a comment in the spec file about the patch moving the tests. [-]: 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]: 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: erlang-lucene_parser-1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm erlang-lucene_parser-1-1.fc25.src.rpm erlang-lucene_parser.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-lucene_parser.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-lucene_parser.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-lucene_parser.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- erlang-lucene_parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-stdlib(x86-64) Provides -------- erlang-lucene_parser: erlang-lucene_parser erlang-lucene_parser(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/basho/riak_search/archive/2.1.1/lucene_parser-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5abe79dda3e9e4dee202486d7a3bfce2482ac749fcba945b727360cfe0aa63ca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5abe79dda3e9e4dee202486d7a3bfce2482ac749fcba945b727360cfe0aa63ca Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1336726 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
Hello, Randy! Thanks for reviewing this, and here is a story behind this package. About 6 years ago lucene_parser was bundled with riak_search application and now is shipped with riak_search. This is very unusual - typically Erlang application consists of a bunch of libraries, which in turn depends on other libraries. Typically this all is being fetched by rebar - one package by another accordingly to a rebar.config contents. Shipping two libraries with different versions in the same tarball causes issues while installing and building dependency graph, and I really don't think we should add a special exception just for this case. I've asked upstream if it's possible to split this library off: https://github.com/basho/riak_search/issues/180 Regarding version - lucene_parser does has it's own version number. It's "1" (not "1.0", or "1.0.0", or anything else). See this file: * https://github.com/basho/riak_search/blob/7818ac9/apps/lucene_parser/src/lucene_parser.app.src#L4 Regarding source tarball. I agree with you - it's better to ship not the latest tarball of riak_search as a source, but rather a corresponding snapshot of this commit: * https://github.com/basho/riak_search/tree/7818ac9 If you have any questions or I did made anything even more unclear then don't hesitate to ask :)
Cool, thanks for the explanations. I'm marking this as approved, but please remember to use the license macro.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-lucene_parser
erlang-lucene_parser-1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4b6ddd3cde
erlang-lucene_parser-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-2016-4b6ddd3cde
erlang-lucene_parser-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.