Bug 1476085 - Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids
Summary: Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Cullen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-07-28 02:47 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2017-08-10 16:54 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-08-10 16:54:00 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
michael: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2017-07-28 02:47:11 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Libsemigroups is a C++ library for semigroups and monoids; it is partly based on "Algorithms for computing finite semigroups", "Expository Slides", and Semigroupe 2.01 by Jean-Eric Pin.

The libsemigroups library is used in the Semigroups package for GAP.
Fedora Account System Username: jjames

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-07-28 08:56:35 UTC
Hello,


A couple of points regarding your package:

 - gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

 - You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.

 - You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

 - Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large number of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered "large" and should be in a separate -doc subpackage.



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

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


===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libsemigroups/review-
     libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libsemigroups-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3358720 bytes in /usr/share
     → Make a doc subpackage
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-devel-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize, initial, inessential
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize, initial, inessential
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings.

Comment 2 Jerry James 2017-07-28 14:18:45 UTC
Thank you for the review, Robert-André.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

That page is out of date.  See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B for the latest guidelines.

>  - You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.

I can, but I don't like those macros.  They seem to me to add verbosity for no gain.

>  - You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

Okay.

>  - Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large
> could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large
> number of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered
> "large" and should be in a separate -doc subpackage.

Okay, I will fix this when I get home from work and upload a new package.  Thank you!

Comment 3 Michael Cullen 2017-07-28 17:09:30 UTC
Robert-André: if you want to take this to completion feel free, but since you didn't claim it I will as part of a review swap with bug 1476014

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-07-28 17:27:07 UTC
No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.

Comment 5 Michael Cullen 2017-07-28 18:00:33 UTC
Robert-André - Ah yeah I thought that might be the case

A few more comments:

* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize

yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american english spellings :-)

* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create

looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option

I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage

Comment 6 Jerry James 2017-07-29 17:06:14 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.

Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list?  What review request(s) have you submitted?

Comment 7 Jerry James 2017-07-29 17:10:16 UTC
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #5)
> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise
> -> initialize
> 
> yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american
> english spellings :-)

Actually, I'm a Yank. :-)  I've gotten into the bad habit of ignoring rpmlint's complaints about misspelled words, because it is nearly always wrong.  I'll rededicate myself to looking through the list of words for those rare cases where it actually finds a misspelled word.

> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
> /usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create
> 
> looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option

Actually, a peek at the build logs show that the -pthread compiler option is being passed.  Apparently that does not imply linking with -lpthread, at least for a shared library.  I've forced the issue by hacking up the Makefile to add -lpthread, which fixes the problem.  Thanks for spotting that!

> I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage

Done.  I also added the standard lines in %build to eliminate hardcoded rpaths.  New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

Comment 8 Michael Cullen 2017-07-30 06:39:38 UTC
I'm guessing you mean 

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

(just fixing the SRPM filename to refer to version 2 rather than a 404 error!)

Comment 9 Michael Cullen 2017-07-30 07:22:23 UTC
Ok, nearly there. A couple of things about that doc subpackage though.

One of the review checklist items is:
* License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

it's possible to install the doc subpackage without getting the license file. Conceptually I can see why you might just want the docs (though it's unlikely!) so maybe the best thing to do is to include the license file in the docs package as well?

Also, I wonder if the doc package should be noarch? 

Other than that it looks good. that pthread thing looks ugly and I can't help thinking there's something else going on there but it'll do.

Comment 10 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2017-07-30 14:04:13 UTC
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> > No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.
> 
> Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list?  What review request(s)
> have you submitted?

I haven't.

I have made a handful or two https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=POST&email1=zebob.m%40gmail.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailcc1=1&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&list_id=7650438

Comment 11 Jerry James 2017-07-31 04:26:21 UTC
Good heavens.  What was that remark you made about not thinking clearly? :-)  Okay, I added the license to the -doc subpackage, and also made -doc be noarch.  These are the actual URLs this time:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.src.rpm

Comment 12 Jerry James 2017-07-31 04:27:21 UTC
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
> I haven't.

I encourage you to do so.  That is a great way to start making connections in the Fedora community.

> I have made a handful or two
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.
> cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIE
> D&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=PO
> ST&email1=zebob.m%40gmail.
> com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailcc1=1&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&list_id=
> 7650438

Okay, I will try to take a look at these in the coming week.

Comment 13 Michael Cullen 2017-07-31 04:58:14 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======


===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/michael/fedora-
     review/1476085-libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(ripgrep)
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     libsemigroups-doc , libsemigroups-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-devel-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-doc-0.3.1-3.fc27.noarch.rpm
          libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.src.rpm
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s
libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s
libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.



Requires
--------
libsemigroups-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libsemigroups-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libsemigroups(x86-64)
    libsemigroups.so.0()(64bit)

libsemigroups (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libsemigroups-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libsemigroups-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libsemigroups-debuginfo
    libsemigroups-debuginfo(x86-64)

libsemigroups-devel:
    libsemigroups-devel
    libsemigroups-devel(x86-64)

libsemigroups:
    libsemigroups
    libsemigroups(x86-64)
    libsemigroups.so.0()(64bit)

libsemigroups-doc:
    libsemigroups-doc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/james-d-mitchell/libsemigroups/releases/download/v0.3.1/libsemigroups-0.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ebbdd098d3b9c08bfecf9de2e3bc1bb69f3fe68e0a56e9f25e51b026c93769c8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebbdd098d3b9c08bfecf9de2e3bc1bb69f3fe68e0a56e9f25e51b026c93769c8


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1476085 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Not sure why rpmlint threw an error about python there but it's almost certainly a fedora-review bug or something.

All looks fine now.

Comment 14 Michael Cullen 2017-07-31 04:58:29 UTC
APPROVED

Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-08-01 12:20:50 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libsemigroups

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2017-08-02 02:39:33 UTC
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0898127c09

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2017-08-03 00:53:09 UTC
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-0898127c09

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2017-08-10 16:54:00 UTC
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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.