Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-vcd/main/R-vcd.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-vcd/raw/main/R-vcd-1.4.8-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Visualization techniques, data sets, summary and inference procedures aimed particularly at categorical data. Special emphasis is given to highly extensible grid graphics. The package was package was originally inspired by the book "Visualizing Categorical Data" by Michael Friendly and is now the main support package for a new book, "Discrete Data Analysis with R" by Michael Friendly and David Meyer (2015). Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
The rawhide chroot is currently broken, so I cant get fedora-review to complete. We'll have to wait for this to be fixed.
Looks good XXX APPROVED XXX Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION, CITATION ^ False positive. ===== 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. [-]: 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". 178 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1956051-R-vcd/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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core. ===== 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. ^ It seems to be common practice for cran packages to not include license texts. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested this [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from 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]: 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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.4.8, packaged version is 1.4.8 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-vcd-1.4.8-1.fc35.noarch.rpm R-vcd-1.4.8-1.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/vcd_1.4-8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 236fcb183152f6e9d131eeb3931d5a064a5ff79be91e4533df9148fd2ff41e0c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 236fcb183152f6e9d131eeb3931d5a064a5ff79be91e4533df9148fd2ff41e0c Requires -------- R-vcd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R(ABI) R(MASS) R(colorspace) R(grDevices) R(grid) R(lmtest) R(stats) R(utils) R-core Provides -------- R-vcd: R(vcd) R-vcd Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1956051 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: R, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks Ankur for another review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-vcd
FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b
FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160
FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7
FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4fe46f3160 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-af5fc6c05b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-a91186b5a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.