Bug 1992880 - Review Request: pari-nflistdata - PARI/GP Computer Algebra System nflist extensions
Summary: Review Request: pari-nflistdata - PARI/GP Computer Algebra System nflist exte...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Beasley
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-08-11 22:08 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2022-07-10 07:51 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-07-10 07:51:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
code: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2021-08-11 22:08:46 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pari-nflistdata/pari-nflistdata.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/pari-nflistdata/pari-nflistdata-20210527-1.fc35.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package contains the optional PARI package nftables, which provides the historical megrez number fields tables (errors fixed, 1/10th the size, easier to use).  These tables can be queried by readvec.

Comment 1 Ben Beasley 2021-08-12 15:28:24 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

===== Issues =====

- You can convert the URL and Source0 from http:// to https:// and they still
  work; so please do change them.

- The packaging guidelines say you “should” contact upstream and encourage them
  to add the license text in its own file.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

  GPLv2+ does not require its text to be distributed, so the package can be approved as-is.

- Reported by rpmlint:

    pari-nflistdata.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4)

  This is trivial, but please fix it.

===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later",
     "Unknown or generated". 282 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1992880-pari-
     nflistdata/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/pari(pari-elldata,
     pari-gp, pari-galpol, pari-seadata, pari-galdata)

     You could add a dependency on pari instead of co-owning these directories
     if you thought this package only made sense to install with pari. However,
     I don’t see any reason another package couldn’t use the data files without
     invoking pari, so I agree that the current approach of co-owning these
     directories is appropriate.

[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.
[-]: 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 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 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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Upstream does not provide any tests.

[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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pari-nflistdata-20210527-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          pari-nflistdata-20210527-1.fc35.src.rpm
pari-nflistdata.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nflist -> finalist
pari-nflistdata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nflist -> finalist
pari-nflistdata.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nflist -> finalist
pari-nflistdata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nflist -> finalist
pari-nflistdata.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 4)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/pub/pari/packages/nflistdata.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a123b2a6776a6579108254f5dbe9fd720ddbc7e46456b45e90a69e92a73b0597
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a123b2a6776a6579108254f5dbe9fd720ddbc7e46456b45e90a69e92a73b0597


Requires
--------
pari-nflistdata (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
pari-nflistdata:
    pari-nflistdata



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1992880
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2021-08-12 15:33:19 UTC
*** Bug 1992879 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2021-08-12 19:13:37 UTC
I went ahead and approved this, as none of the issues I found are really blockers, but please do take a look at them. Thanks!

Comment 4 Jerry James 2021-08-12 22:04:07 UTC
Ben, thank you for the review!  I absentmindedly pasted the pari-nflistdata URLs into this bug, so I'm going to swap the names on this and bug 1992879.  I have fixed the space and http vs. https issues as requested.  The updated spec and srpm are available at the URLs above.

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2021-08-12 22:13:46 UTC
Ok, it looks like this bug now correctly reviews and approves pari-nflistdata. Let me know if you have any trouble with “fedpkg request-repo” and we’ll figure it out.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-08-13 13:46:10 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pari-nflistdata

Comment 7 Package Review 2022-07-10 07:51:06 UTC
Package is now in repositories, closing review.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.