Bug 1727499 - Review Request: gap-pkg-forms - Sesquilinear and quadratic forms
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-forms - Sesquilinear and quadratic forms
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-07-07 02:55 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2019-07-21 15:28 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2019-07-21 15:28:05 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2019-07-07 02:55:49 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-forms/gap-pkg-forms.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-forms/gap-pkg-forms-1.2.5-1.fc31.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package provides:
- A way to create and use sesquilinear and quadratic forms on finite vector spaces.
- An operation which finds an isometry between two forms of the same type
- An operation which returns the forms left invariant by a matrix group.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-07-10 21:36:41 UTC
I can't find any information regarding the license, how do you know it's GPLv2?

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-07-10 21:37:15 UTC
Disregard, found http://cage.ugent.be/geometry/software/forms/chap0.html

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-07-10 21:55:15 UTC
Package approved.

Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 259 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gap-pkg-
[-]: 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
[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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: 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).
[?]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: gap-pkg-forms-1.2.5-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
gap-pkg-forms.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sesquilinear -> Sesquicentennial
gap-pkg-forms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sesquilinear -> sesquicentennial
gap-pkg-forms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US isometry -> isometrics, isometric
gap-pkg-forms.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-forms-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
gap-pkg-forms-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-forms.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sesquilinear -> Sesquicentennial
gap-pkg-forms.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sesquilinear -> sesquicentennial
gap-pkg-forms.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US isometry -> isometrics, isometric
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2019-07-12 02:17:17 UTC
FEDORA-2019-683a7114db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-683a7114db

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-07-13 00:57:51 UTC
gap-pkg-forms-1.2.5-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-683a7114db

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-07-21 15:28:05 UTC
gap-pkg-forms-1.2.5-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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.