Bug 710907 - Review Request: octave-specfun - Specfun for Octave
Summary: Review Request: octave-specfun - Specfun for Octave
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: José Matos
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-06-05 16:24 UTC by Thomas Sailer
Modified: 2016-08-14 16:26 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: octave-control-2.0.2-2.fc15
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-06-24 03:48:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
jamatos: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Sailer 2011-06-05 16:24:50 UTC
Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-specfun.spec
SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-specfun-1.0.9-1.fc15.src.rpm
Description: Special functions including elliptic functions, etc

Scratch Build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3112041

Comment 1 José Matos 2011-06-14 16:56:30 UTC
I will take this review.

Comment 2 José Matos 2011-06-14 17:14:18 UTC
The usual suggestions apply:

1) buildroot

2) the license file marked as %doc

3) the spell checker is right in this case, in the Description, you should fix Heaviside and Dirac's capitalization

Again I trust you to fix this after importing it.

The package is APPROVED.


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

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
        MD5SUM this package     : 264ab3748fa01aed0efde413b629f63d
        MD5SUM upstream package : 264ab3748fa01aed0efde413b629f63d
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
        
        rpmlint octave-specfun-debuginfo-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
        ================================================================================
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        
        rpmlint octave-specfun-1.0.9-1.fc16.i686.rpm
        ================================================================================
        octave-specfun.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US heaviside -> Heaviside
        octave-specfun.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirac -> Dirac
        octave-specfun.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
        octave-specfun.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/specfun-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
        octave-specfun.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/specfun-1.0.9/packinfo/.autoload
        octave-specfun.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
        ================================================================================
        
        rpmlint octave-specfun-1.0.9-1.fc16.src.rpm
        ================================================================================
        octave-specfun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US heaviside -> Heaviside
        octave-specfun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirac -> Dirac
        1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
        ================================================================================

Known issues not related with this package (octave specific).
        
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!] : MUST - 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 %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ] : SHOULD - 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] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
[x] : SHOULD - Package functions as described.
[x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged.
[x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables.
[x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[-] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
[x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

Comment 3 Thomas Sailer 2011-06-15 10:30:57 UTC
Thank you for the review!

I fixed the usual things :) Namely marked license as %doc, removed the buildroot, and capitalized mathematicians names.

http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-specfun-1.0.9-2.fc15.src.rpm
http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-specfun.spec

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: octave-specfun
Short Description: Specfun for Octave
Owners: sailer
Branches: f15
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-06-15 12:01:28 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 16:32:34 UTC
octave-control-2.0.2-2.fc15,octave-symbolic-1.0.9-2.fc15,octave-audio-1.1.4-2.fc15,octave-quaternion-1.0.0-2.fc15,octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-2.fc15,octave-specfun-1.0.9-2.fc15,octave-struct-1.0.9-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-control-2.0.2-2.fc15,octave-symbolic-1.0.9-2.fc15,octave-audio-1.1.4-2.fc15,octave-quaternion-1.0.0-2.fc15,octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-2.fc15,octave-specfun-1.0.9-2.fc15,octave-struct-1.0.9-3.fc15

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2011-06-15 23:52:56 UTC
octave-control-2.0.2-2.fc15, octave-symbolic-1.0.9-2.fc15, octave-audio-1.1.4-2.fc15, octave-quaternion-1.0.0-2.fc15, octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-2.fc15, octave-specfun-1.0.9-2.fc15, octave-struct-1.0.9-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2011-06-24 03:47:26 UTC
octave-control-2.0.2-2.fc15, octave-symbolic-1.0.9-2.fc15, octave-audio-1.1.4-2.fc15, octave-quaternion-1.0.0-2.fc15, octave-miscellaneous-1.0.11-2.fc15, octave-specfun-1.0.9-2.fc15, octave-struct-1.0.9-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.


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