Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-qpa/gap-pkg-qpa.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-qpa/gap-pkg-qpa-1.30-1.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package carries out computations for finite dimensional quotients of path algebras over the fields that are available in GAP. QPA stands for "Quivers and Path Algebras".
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. [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". 120 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user_to_make_rpms/reviews/1813713-gap-pkg-qpa/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/#_requires_recommends_and_suggests states that "Requires: gap-core" must be included. [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 51200 bytes in 2 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. did you report the LaTeX issue fixed by the doc patch upstream? [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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 ===== 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-qpa-1.30-1.fc33.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-qpa-doc-1.30-1.fc33.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-qpa-1.30-1.fc33.src.rpm gap-pkg-qpa.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-qpa.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-qpa/LICENSE gap-pkg-qpa-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-qpa-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gap-pkg-qpa-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://folk.ntnu.no/oyvinso/QPA/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gap-pkg-qpa-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-qpa-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-qpa.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://folk.ntnu.no/oyvinso/QPA/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> gap-pkg-qpa.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-qpa.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-qpa/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Notes: [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/#_requires_recommends_and_suggests states that "Requires: gap-core" must be included. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. did you report the LaTeX issue fixed by the doc patch upstream? (it is a "should", but if not explain why) rplint error: upstream should be informed about the incorrect-fsf-address error/ See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
Thank you for the review, Jos. (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #1) > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/ > #_requires_recommends_and_suggests > states that "Requires: gap-core" must be included. The irony of this is that I wrote the GAP guidelines. :-) I should have them amended. What is important is that a gap-pkg-* package depends on gap-core, either directly or transitively. In this case, the dependency is transitive via gap-pkg-gbnp. I have added a direct dependency on gap-core, but I will probably remove it later once I submit a revision for the guidelines. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > did you report the LaTeX issue fixed by the doc patch upstream? (it is a > "should", but if not explain why) I just did: https://github.com/gap-packages/qpa/issues/48 > rplint error: > upstream should be informed about the incorrect-fsf-address error/ > See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address I have submitted a pull request: https://github.com/gap-packages/qpa/pull/49 I updated the spec file and the SRPM at the same URLs as above, since this is just a minor change.
Thanks a lot for the updates. I am happy with this version. Also good to see that upstream already merged your pull requests to fix the 2 mentioned issues. Of course I understand that an indirect dependency should be good as well, just tried to follow the gap guidelines .... PACKAGE APPROVED
You were very thorough, which is exactly right for a package review. Thank you again!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-qpa
gap-pkg-qpa-1.30-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-4ab9afe549
FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549
gap-pkg-qpa-1.30-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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-2020-4ab9afe549
FEDORA-2020-4ab9afe549 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.