Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-tomlib/gap-pkg-tomlib.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-tomlib/gap-pkg-tomlib-1.2.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This add-on package for GAP provides access to several hundred tables of marks of almost simple groups and their maximal subgroups. License note: an earlier version of this package is shipped with GAP (but not installed by the Fedora GAP package). GAP is GPLv2+. Originally, neither the source tarball nor the upstream website mentioned a license. I queried the authors of this package. They released version 1r2p2, and added this sentence to their web page (http://schmidt.nuigalway.ie/tomlib/): "Copright © 2011. We adopt the copyright regulations of GAP as detailed in the copyright notice in the GAP manual." That's not as clear as I would have liked, but the email response indicates that they want this package to carry the same license as GAP itself.
I have decided to adopt the Debian naming convention for GAP packages. Accordingly, this package is now named gap-table-of-marks, although (following Debian again) it also Provides: gap-pkg-tomlib. New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-table-of-marks/gap-table-of-marks.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-table-of-marks/gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
1. Ideally we'd run /usr/share/gap/pkg/tomlib/tst/testall.g during %check I've manually verified that "gap /usr/share/gap/pkg/tomlib/tst/testall.g" does work after installation. I can't quite figure out how to run this during an RPM build, I wap hoping I could set some environment variable like CLASSPATH or PYTHONPATH that would make gap look under %{buildroot}. Not a blocker. 2. I've tested the package lightly following instructions from: http://schmidt.nuigalway.ie/tomlib/doc/chap1.html and it does work :) Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [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. License situation noted in comment 0. I agree that the authors wanted the license to be the same as gap itself, which is GPLv2+. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [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. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is 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 is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [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 Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/scottt/work/gap-table-of-marks/tomlib1r2p2.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : eb9798cbc044f7d7af9044133f086b96 MD5SUM upstream package : eb9798cbc044f7d7af9044133f086b96 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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 Dist tag is present. [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 Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3704930 [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. APPROVED.
It would be nice if %check would work. I'll ask upstream whether the next version of GAP might support that. Thanks again, Scott. I'm starting to feel guilty about all the work you've put into reviewing for me. If you've got a package that needs review, drop me an email.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gap-table-of-marks Short Description: GAP Table of Marks package Owners: jjames Branches: f16 InitialCC:
(In reply to comment #3) > I'm starting to feel guilty about all the work you've put into reviewing for me. If you've got a package that needs review, drop me an email. Not a problem! ^_^ I'll be sure to drop you a mail.
Bug summary and SCM package names don't match, please correct. Thanks!
Oops. Sorry about that. Let's try this again. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gap-table-of-marks Short Description: GAP Table of Marks package Owners: jjames Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16
gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
gap-table-of-marks-1.2.2-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.