Bug 2396613 - Review Request: gap-pkg-packagemanager - Basic package manager for GAP
Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-packagemanager - Basic package manager for GAP
Keywords:
Status: RELEASE_PENDING
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gerald Cox
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-09-19 01:54 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2025-09-25 17:50 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:
gbcox: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2025-09-19 01:54:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-packagemanager/gap-pkg-packagemanager.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-packagemanager/gap-pkg-packagemanager-1.6.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: PackageManager is a basic collection of simple functions for installing and removing GAP packages, with the eventual aim of becoming a full pip-style package manager for the GAP system.

This package will be part of the set of GAP packages considered "default" by the base gap package when version 4.15.0 is released.

I am willing to swap reviews.

Comment 1 Jerry James 2025-09-19 01:56:55 UTC
This package probably won't build in Rawhide.  It must be reviewed in the context of the pending gap 4.15.0 update, in this COPR:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/GAP4.15/

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-09-19 01:58:01 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9571993
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2396613-gap-pkg-packagemanager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09571993-gap-pkg-packagemanager/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Jerry James 2025-09-21 14:27:57 UTC
Benson, as I noted on fedora-devel-list, I'm in a hurry with this package.  Do you plan to do the actual review soon, as in the next 24 hours?

Comment 4 Benson Muite 2025-09-21 14:40:07 UTC
Working on it.

Comment 5 Benson Muite 2025-09-21 18:51:54 UTC
Trying to rebuild in a copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/GAP4.15/build/9587817/

srpm rebuild fails:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/GAP4.15/srpm-builds/09587817/builder-live.log.gz

working on adding a custom mock config as rebuilding all dependencies will take some time.

If someone is able to review in the next 10 hours, that would be great, if not will continue the process.

Comment 6 Benson Muite 2025-09-22 19:11:48 UTC
It builds now:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/GAP4.15/build/9590630/
though fedora-review tool fails



Fedora review failed
err:
INFO: Processing local files: gap-pkg-packagemanager
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results
INFO:   --> SRPM url: file:///var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/gap-pkg-packagemanager-1.6.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
INFO: Using review directory: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/gap-pkg-packagemanager
error: line 16: Unknown buildsystem: gap
ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/cache/fedora-review.log)
Exception ignored on flushing sys.stdout:
AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush'
The build itself will not be marked as failed because of this

Comment 7 Jerry James 2025-09-22 21:20:50 UTC
Benson, thank you so much for jumping on this so quickly.  Have you tried running fedora-review against my COPR?  This should work:

fedora-review --copr-build 9560688

The build number is available by visiting the COPR (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/GAP4.15/), choosing the Builds tab, then searching for gap-pkg-packagemanager.  Hmmm, that gives strange-permission errors for the tar.gz and the spec file; neither are an issue in the source rpm I linked above.  I wonder what caused that?

Comment 8 Gerald Cox 2025-09-23 19:32:28 UTC
Approved

Note: Review was conducted inside a privileged podman Rawhide container
with the jjames/GAP4.15 COPR enabled to provide gap-srpm-macros 2.x.
The package built successfully in mock (fedora-rawhide-x86_64).

Issues (non-blocking)
---------------------
- Rpmlint: incorrect-fsf-address in LICENSE (cosmetic)
- Rpmlint: dangling symlinks in -doc package
- Rpmlint: strange-permission on tarball and spec (0666)
- Licensecheck: 48 files without license headers (covered by GPL-2.0-or-later LICENSE)


Package Review
==============

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 48
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /work/copr-build-9560688/review-gap-pkg-
     packagemanager/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.
[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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 8421 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     (fedora-rawhide-x86_64 with GAP4.15 COPR)
[x]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gap-pkg-packagemanager-1.6.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc-1.6.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          gap-pkg-packagemanager-1.6.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpy4l5rq7s')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

gap-pkg-packagemanager.src: W: strange-permission PackageManager-1.6.3.tar.gz 666
gap-pkg-packagemanager.src: W: strange-permission gap-pkg-packagemanager.spec 666
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation
gap-pkg-packagemanager.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-packagemanager/LICENSE
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css
gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/PackageManager/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "gap-pkg-packagemanager".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gap-packages/PackageManager/archive/v1.6.3/PackageManager-1.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b4ffe9ea66b5d6fda6b5ebaf6b96f59e4d8ef30f6f387b02b6e15e039775655b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b4ffe9ea66b5d6fda6b5ebaf6b96f59e4d8ef30f6f387b02b6e15e039775655b


Requires
--------
gap-pkg-packagemanager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/sh
    gap-core

gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    gap-online-help
    gap-pkg-packagemanager



Provides
--------
gap-pkg-packagemanager:
    gap-pkg-packagemanager

gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc:
    gap-pkg-packagemanager-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build 9560688
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, PHP, fonts, Perl, Python, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-09-25 17:50:28 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-packagemanager


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