Bug 1340551 - Review Request: gap-pkg-irredsol - Irreducible soluble linear groups over finite fields
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-irredsol - Irreducible soluble linear groups over fin...
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: 2016-05-27 20:51 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2016-06-18 18:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-18 18:45:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rosser.bjr: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2016-05-27 20:51:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-irredsol/gap-pkg-irredsol.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-irredsol/gap-pkg-irredsol-1.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: IRREDSOL is a GAP package which provides a library of all irreducible soluble subgroups of GL(n, q), up to conjugacy, where n is a positive integer and q a prime power satisfying q^n ≤ 2000000, and a library of all primitive soluble groups of degree at most 2000000.

Comment 1 Ben Rosser 2016-06-02 01:26:06 UTC
Happy to review, any chance you could take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887? (this is a re-review of a Python package).

Comment 2 Ben Rosser 2016-06-03 02:16:40 UTC
Package is approved; everything looks fine to me.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file copyright.tex is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/1340551-gap-pkg-irredsol/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 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]: 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:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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]: 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-irredsol-1.3.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-irredsol-1.3.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
gap-pkg-irredsol.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conjugacy -> conjugation, conjugal
gap-pkg-irredsol.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-irredsol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conjugacy -> conjugation, conjugal
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gap-pkg-irredsol.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conjugacy -> conjugation, conjugal
gap-pkg-irredsol.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-irredsol (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-core



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-irredsol:
    gap-pkg-irredsol



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/~bhoeflin/irredsol/irredsol-1.3.1.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c73ed55bb71874ff1a94601d02e92f97c1c87f5ae5de01166e03c2f70b27fbc7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c73ed55bb71874ff1a94601d02e92f97c1c87f5ae5de01166e03c2f70b27fbc7


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1340551 -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 3 Jerry James 2016-06-03 03:32:52 UTC
Thanks for the review!

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-06-03 16:44:04 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gap-pkg-irredsol

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2016-06-03 17:30:10 UTC
gap-pkg-irredsol-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5caf05f266

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2016-06-04 18:25:44 UTC
gap-pkg-irredsol-1.3.1-1.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-2016-5caf05f266

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-06-18 18:45:19 UTC
gap-pkg-irredsol-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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