Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/lcalc.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/lcalc-2.2.1-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: Command-line utility and library for L-function computations. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a review for renaming of the L-function package, which I just adopted after it was orphaned; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ and note that the L-function spec file has carried a TODO for renaming for quite a while. At the same time, I update to the latest release and reorganize the subpackages to separate the tool from the library. This involves an ABI break, as the SONAME version is bumped from 1 to 2, so I will only build this in F45+/Rawhide. I also build the package with OpenMP support enabled. Since the old L-function package is a leaf package, there are no compatibility concerns, and nothing else needs to be rebuilt.
Jerry, I am CC’ing you on this review because I know you have been taking care of the old L-function package, even though you were not the primary maintainer. If you like, I would be happy to add you as co-maintainer.
Noticing that rpmlint flags the obsolete FSF address in the GPLv2 license text and notices, I sent upstream a PR to update them: https://gitlab.com/sagemath/lcalc/-/merge_requests/10. Since upstream accepted the PR, I *could* patch it in downstream. (I only modify license texts when I can point to a PR or unreleased commit that upstream has actually approved.) However, the change isn’t terribly important, so I don’t feel the need to update this submission, and I might just wait for the next upstream release anyway.
Nice! I'm glad to see the package finally get the name it should have. I will take this review. I only did maintenance work on the L-function package to try to help out the sagemath people. I have no direct interest in it myself.
This package is APPROVED. One note: the file src/libLfunction/mpreal.h is dual-licensed nonfree and GPL-3.0-or-later. It is only used in the build if precision is "multiple". Since precision is currently set to "double", there is no issue, but I wonder if the spec file should contain a comment noting that choosing "multiple" would affect the license of the package. (Also, note that comment A in that file is incorrect; mpfr is licensed LGPL-3.0-or-later, not any form of GPL.) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 41 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: 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 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 1233 bytes in 1 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libLfunction , libLfunction-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lcalc-2.2.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libLfunction-2.2.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libLfunction-devel-2.2.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libLfunction-doc-2.2.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm lcalc-2.2.1-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmp5yqk656l')] checks: 32, packages: 5 libLfunction-doc.noarch: W: makefile-junk /usr/share/doc/libLfunction-doc/examples/Makefile.am libLfunction-doc.noarch: W: makefile-junk /usr/share/doc/libLfunction-doc/examples/data/Makefile.am libLfunction.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libLfunction/COPYING libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/L.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Ldirichlet_series.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lelliptic.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lfind_zeros.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lgamma.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lglobals.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lgram.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lmisc.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lnumbertheory.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lnumberzeros.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lprint.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lriemannsiegel.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lvalue.h libLfunction-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libLfunction-doc/COPYING 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 2 warnings, 31 filtered, 15 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lcalc-debuginfo-2.2.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmpcc141zd9')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 5 libLfunction-doc.noarch: W: makefile-junk /usr/share/doc/libLfunction-doc/examples/Makefile.am libLfunction-doc.noarch: W: makefile-junk /usr/share/doc/libLfunction-doc/examples/data/Makefile.am libLfunction.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libLfunction/COPYING libLfunction-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/libLfunction-doc/COPYING libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/L.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Ldirichlet_series.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lelliptic.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lfind_zeros.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lgamma.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lglobals.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lgram.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lmisc.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lnumbertheory.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lnumberzeros.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lprint.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lriemannsiegel.h libLfunction-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/lcalc/Lvalue.h 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 2 warnings, 37 filtered, 15 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/sagemath/lcalc/-/archive/2.2.1/lcalc-2.2.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5ea5325c35e031f681d586f0daed7782277cd41101b5bdf778e02587077c59cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ea5325c35e031f681d586f0daed7782277cd41101b5bdf778e02587077c59cb Requires -------- lcalc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libLfunction(x86-64) libLfunction.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpari-gmp-tls.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libLfunction (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpari-gmp-tls.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libLfunction-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libLfunction(x86-64) libLfunction.so.2()(64bit) libLfunction-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lcalc: L-function lcalc lcalc(x86-64) libLfunction: libLfunction libLfunction(x86-64) libLfunction.so.2()(64bit) libLfunction-devel: L-function-devel libLfunction-devel libLfunction-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(lcalc) libLfunction-doc: libLfunction-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2478132 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, PHP, Ruby, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > This package is APPROVED. Thank you for the review! https://release-monitoring.org/project/231475/ > One note: the file src/libLfunction/mpreal.h is dual-licensed nonfree and > GPL-3.0-or-later. It is only used in the build if precision is "multiple". > Since precision is currently set to "double", there is no issue, but I > wonder if the spec file should contain a comment noting that choosing > "multiple" would affect the license of the package. This is a very good catch! I will document these details in the spec file, and remove the header in %prep for builds where it should not be used. In fact, “MPFR C++,” a C++ wrapper over MPFR, is a header-only library, and mpreal.h is the whole thing, so this would need to be unbundled or documented as a case of bundling if we ever did a multi-precision build. I doubt we will ever build this for anything other than double precision in Fedora proper. > (Also, note that comment A in that file is incorrect; mpfr is licensed > LGPL-3.0-or-later, not any form of GPL.) MPFR is LGPL, but the “MPFR C++” wrapper really is GPL: http://www.holoborodko.com/pavel/mpfr/#license
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lcalc Monitoring: Anitya project is accessible by this link `https://release-monitoring.org/project/231475` you can modify it manually.
FEDORA-2026-d4dc98cb68 (lcalc-2.2.1-3.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d4dc98cb68
FEDORA-2026-d4dc98cb68 (lcalc-2.2.1-3.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.