Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval-2.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: The Octave-forge Interval package for real-valued interval arithmetic allows one to evaluate functions over subsets of their domain. All results are verified, because interval computations automatically keep track of any errors. These concepts can be used to handle uncertainties, estimate arithmetic errors and produce reliable results. Also it can be applied to computer-assisted proofs, constraint programming, and verified computing. The implementation is based on interval boundaries represented by binary64 numbers and is conforming to IEEE Std 1788-2015, IEEE standard for interval arithmetic. Fedora Account System Username: cbm
Fails to build on non-x86 arches, reported upstream: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51758 So not much hurry on the this review!
Ok, patched that. Koji successfully built all arches now. Ready for review: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval-2.1.0-2.fc26.src.rpm Description: The Octave-forge Interval package for real-valued interval arithmetic allows one to evaluate functions over subsets of their domain. All results are verified, because interval computations automatically keep track of any errors. These concepts can be used to handle uncertainties, estimate arithmetic errors and produce reliable results. Also it can be applied to computer-assisted proofs, constraint programming, and verified computing. The implementation is based on interval boundaries represented by binary64 numbers and is conforming to IEEE Std 1788-2015, IEEE standard for interval arithmetic. Fedora Account System Username: cbm
Hello, - The Group: tag is not required when packaging for Fedora. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - Most of the package is GPLv3+ but crlibm is under LGPLv2+. This should be reflected in the License: tag and detailed 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "Apache GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Apache (v2.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive". 260 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave-interval/review-octave- interval/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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 octave- interval-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5099520 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: octave-interval-2.1.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm octave-interval-debuginfo-2.1.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm octave-interval-2.1.0-2.fc27.src.rpm octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/interval-2.1.0/doc/.octaverc octave-interval.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-interval-2.1.0-3.fc26.src.rpm Thank you for the review! I have addressed those comments.
All good. Package accepted. 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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* LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "Apache GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Apache (v2.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive". 260 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave-interval/review-octave- interval/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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). [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 octave- interval-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5099520 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: octave-interval-2.1.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm octave-interval-debuginfo-2.1.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm octave-interval-2.1.0-3.fc27.src.rpm octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id octave-interval.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/interval-2.1.0/doc/.octaverc octave-interval.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.)
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-interval
octave-interval-3.0.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b2ee1b5366
octave-interval-3.0.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-b2ee1b5366
octave-interval-3.0.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.