Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/Singular-surf.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/Singular-surf-1.0.6-1.src.rpm Description: surf is a tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry: plane algebraic curves, algebraic surfaces and hyperplane sections of surfaces. surf is script driven and has (optionally) a nifty GUI using the Gtk widget set. Fedora Account System Username:pcpa
This package is based on the Mandriva surf package http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/surf/ it is required for a functional sagemath tutorial, an example screenshot http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/rawhide-sage-notebook4.png The package was named Singular-surf because only Singular should use it, it is the most common alternate name I could find, and there is already a surf package in fedora, that the new package explicitly conflicts to, but if mandatory I can work on patching Singular to want something else, and the package rename installed files.
%{?_dist} is wrong, it should read %{?dist}. ** %dir %{_datadir}/surf %{_datadir}/surf/surf.xpm Why do things so complex? This is the same as %{_datadir}/surf/
I think that you can't assume that only Singular uses the application, since it looks like a rather general use application (it has a GUI after all). Please contact upstream, and ask them to come up with a less general name for the application.
(In reply to comment #2) > %{?_dist} is wrong, it should read %{?dist}. > > ** Thanks. I messed something when finishing the package and uploading, as I had it correct in my computer: $ rpm -q Singular-surf Singular-surf-1.0.6-1.x86_64 > %dir %{_datadir}/surf > %{_datadir}/surf/surf.xpm > > Why do things so complex? This is the same as > > %{_datadir}/surf/ Thanks. For some reason I made this mistake when packaging version 1.0.5 in Mandriva some years ago.
(In reply to comment #3) > I think that you can't assume that only Singular uses the application, since > it looks like a rather general use application (it has a GUI after all). Yes. I did "choose" it because it actually gets a lot of google hits. > Please contact upstream, and ask them to come up with a less general name > for the application. I can open a bug report, but I am afraid chances are very small of upstream changing the name, but as I said in the initial comment, I can patch Singular to use another name. I do not know why the surf package has not been rebuilt for some time also: $ repoquery -i surf Name : surf Version : 0.4.1 Release : 3.fc15 Architecture: x86_64 Size : 31272 Packager : Fedora Project Group : Applications/Internet URL : http://surf.suckless.org/ Repository : rawhide Summary : Simple web browser Source : surf-0.4.1-3.fc15.src.rpm Description : surf is a simple web browser based on WebKit/GTK+. but git log shows release was bumped for f17 mass rebuild.
Contacted upstream about name issue https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3545933&group_id=3275&atid=103275 Correction to packaging problems: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/Singular-surf.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/Singular-surf-1.0.6-2.fc18.src.rpm
*** Bug 697680 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Since I made a hash of the original review (sorry, Mario!), the least I can do is see this one through. Things look pretty good in general. I understand that upstream is at least mostly dead, but Jussi's point in comment 3 is well taken. Shouldn't this package have a more general name? (That's why I called my version "surf-geometry".) According to http://sagemath.org/packages/experimental/, Sage is using surf version 1.1! Where did that version come from? Do you know? The conflict with the existing surf package can cause problems. Can we rename the binary in this package instead so they don't conflict? Again, I realize that this makes us nonstandard and that we can't talk to upstream about it because upstream mostly isn't there anymore, but that seems to be a better path to me. I noticed that the configure script reports that it cannot find tiffio.h, even though that file is in libtiff-devel. Do you know what's going on there?
(In reply to comment #8) > According to http://sagemath.org/packages/experimental/, Sage is using surf > version 1.1! Where did that version come from? Do you know? Looking at the spkg contents: [[[[ $ cat surf-1.1/get_from_cvs echo "Enter a blank password" cvs -d:pserver:anonymous.net:/cvsroot/surf login cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous.net:/cvsroot/surf co -P surf ]]]] But it looks seriously outdated: [[[[ $ cat surf-1.1/SAGE.txt This is the 2006-02-12 CVS version of surf 1.1.0, obtained using cvs -d:pserver:anonymous.net:/cvsroot/surf login cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous.net:/cvsroot/surf co -P surf I'm using the cvs version since I couldn't get the download version from 2003 to compile (it's just too out of date). I then ran autogen.sh to create the configure script. ---------------------------------------------- I had to change the source code in two files to get surf to compile with GCC 4.0.2 on my system: * Deleted "IO::" in three places in surf/misc/IO.cc lines 207, 218, and 228 * Also in misc/IO.cc, changed line 121 to #ifdef XHAVE_LIBREADLINE so that chunk of code that uses readline isn't used. (It seems to be out of date. Since we're only using surf from singular, not having readline somewhere shouldn't be a big problem.) PACKAGE MAINTAINER: William Stein ]]]] I actually did never check on actual upstream sagemath binaries. Maybe the singular examples using surf are not working in recent sagemath; I know it works in my Mandriva and current work in progress Fedora sagemath rpm package, using the package proposed here. Yes, BTW the sagemath version looks quite bogus... > The conflict with the existing surf package can cause problems. Can we > rename the binary in this package instead so they don't conflict? Again, I > realize that this makes us nonstandard and that we can't talk to upstream > about it because upstream mostly isn't there anymore, but that seems to be a > better path to me. Renaming the binary should be trivial, I was not much happy with needing to patch Singular scripts to match the new name, but should also not be a big deal. But then, the "surf" package, for the single webkit window appears to be quite outdated. > I noticed that the configure script reports that it cannot find tiffio.h, > even though that file is in libtiff-devel. Do you know what's going on > there? Looks like something bogus, and should be corrected, (or just ignore tiff support :-) [[[[ dnl check for tiff library and header file (FreeBSD 3.0 has tiff34.so dnl instead of tiff.so and the header files are in /usr/local/lib/tiff34): AC_CHECK_LIB(tiff, main,, AC_CHECK_LIB(tiff34, main,, AC_MSG_ERROR([Sorry: can't find libtiff]))) AC_CHECK_HEADER(tiffio.h,, [AC_CHECK_HEADER(tiff34/tiffio.h,AC_DEFINE(TIFF_HEADER_34))], [AC_MSG_ERROR(["Sorry: cannot find header file tiffio.h"])] ) ]]]] Thanks for spotting it. I will check if autoreconf does work, otherwise, could patch the configure script instead. Actually, the "surfex" java interface in Singular-surfex should be good for most if not all uses, just that the surf binary and the associated sagemath tutorial examples expect to use Singular's surf.lib that uses the surf binary. As noted in #c2 but link here for easier access, this is how it looks like in the sagemath tutorial http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/rawhide-sage-notebook4.png
(In reply to comment #8) > I noticed that the configure script reports that it cannot find tiffio.h, > even though that file is in libtiff-devel. Do you know what's going on > there? Actually, it only checks for tiff34/tiffio.h and if found, it will link to -ltiff34, otherwise, it will include tiffio.h and link to -ltiff. The what link to is defined in configure, and the source that uses it is surf-1.0.6/image-formats/tiffprint.cc: #ifdef TIFF_HEADER_34 #include <tiff34/tiffio.h> #else #include <tiffio.h> #endif So, the message in config.log is a bit misleading, but is the expected result.
That is a misleading message! Okay, so it looks like the main issue is the naming of the package and the binary. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I think it is just the style used to check the tiff version in "ancient" systems. Usually config.log has several other test error results, but those are more common. Changing package name should be trivial, but changing binary name should require patching Singular. Nothing else, at least in Fedora, should use this package. Quick and dirt strings check: $ egrep -r '\<surf\>' /usr/lib64/Singular/ /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib: This library uses the program surf /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib: This library requires the program surfex, surf and java to be installed. /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib: surfex is a front-end for surf which aims to be easier to use than /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:LIB "surf.lib"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib: string l="surf"+string(system("pid"))+".sux"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:// procedures used to produce the surf-code: /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:RETURN: a string, that one can use with the external program surf /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:NOTE: This library uses the external programs surf, graphviz and xv. /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:finalCharts(L,...) pictures of final charts of surface (uses surf) /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:CREATE: - new windows in which surf-images of the final charts are presented /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:@* external programs 'surf' and 'xv' [pcpa@localhost rpmbuild]$ egrep -rn '\<surf\>' /usr/lib64/Singular/ /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:8: This library uses the program surf /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:13: This library requires the program surfex, surf and java to be installed. /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:17: surfex is a front-end for surf which aims to be easier to use than /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:37:LIB "surf.lib"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:506: string l="surf"+string(system("pid"))+".sux"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:547:// procedures used to produce the surf-code: /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:946:RETURN: a string, that one can use with the external program surf /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:9:NOTE: This library uses the external programs surf, graphviz and xv. /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:15:finalCharts(L,...) pictures of final charts of surface (uses surf) /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:309:CREATE: - new windows in which surf-images of the final charts are presented /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:312:@* external programs 'surf' and 'xv' (X11/Xorg package) need to be /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:413:// Go through all final charts and write a separate surf input file for each /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:417: fname=fnamebase + string(endCharts[i]) + ".surf"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:420://--- define surf's root finding algorithm /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:516://--- 1) surf can only handle real numbers ==> we ignore the other curves /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:576: j=system("sh", "surf -n " + fnamebase +string(endCharts[i]) + ".surf"); /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/all.lib:94:LIB "surf.lib"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/COPYING:180:surf.lib Hans Schoenemann hannes.de /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:2:version="$Id: surf.lib 14583 2012-02-13 15:00:05Z motsak $"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:5:LIBRARY: surf.lib Procedures for Graphics with Surf /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:10: Using this library requires the program @code{surf} to be installed. /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:11: You can download @code{surf} either from /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:12: @uref{http://sourceforge.net/projects/sur} /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:67:NOTE: requires the external program `surf` to be installed, /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:72: string extra_surf_opts=" -x --auto-resize "; // remove this line for surf 0.9 /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:73: string l = "/tmp/surf" + string(system("pid")); /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:156: surf_call = surf_call + " >/dev/null 2>&1 &) && sleep 5 && (surf"; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:163: "Press q to exit from `surf`."; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:169: err_mes = "calling `surf` failed" + newline /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:182: surf_call = "surf "; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:195: "Press q to exit from `surf`."; /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:199: err_mes = "calling `surf` failed" + newline /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:153:surf (used by surf.lib, *note surf_lib::) /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:155: `http://surf.sf.net' /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:157:surfer (used by surf.lib, *note surf_lib::) /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:29453:generated automatically by using external programs `surf' and `dot' /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:43122: This library uses the external programs surf, graphviz and xv. /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:43132:* finalCharts:: pictures of final charts of surface (uses surf) /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:43226: - new windows in which surf-images of the final charts are /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:43232: external programs 'surf' and 'xv' (X11/Xorg package) need to be /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53167:* surf_lib:: interface to the surf programm /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53645: surf.lib /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53654: Using this library requires the program `surf' to be installed. /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53655: You can download `surf' either from /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53656: `http://sourceforge.net/projects/surf' or from /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53682:Procedure from library `surf.lib' (*note surf_lib::). /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53694: requires the external program surf` to be installed, /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53698: LIB "surf.lib"; /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53725:Procedure from library `surf.lib' (*note surf_lib::). /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53741: LIB "surf.lib"; /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53768: This library uses the program surf /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53774: This library requires the program surfex, surf and java to be /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:53779: surfex is a front-end for surf which aims to be easier to use than /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:64903: * surf.lib: new command `surfer': interface to program `surfer' /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:65631: * - singular-surf, /usr/lib64/Singular/info/singular.hlp:68580:* surf.lib: surf_lib. (line 6) /usr/lib64/Singular/NEWS:383: * surf.lib: new command `surfer': interface to program `surfer' /usr/lib64/Singular/doc/singular.idx:2644:surf.lib sing_1597.htm#SEC1673 should be enough to patch /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surfex.lib:506 /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/resgraph.lib:576 /usr/lib64/Singular/LIB/surf.lib:182 to use whatever name the binary is renamed.
(In reply to comment #12) > Changing package name should be trivial, but changing > binary name should require patching Singular. Nothing > else, at least in Fedora, should use this package. Well ... maybe. I think the concern in comment 3, which I share, is that while there are no other users of surf in Fedora *right now*, we can't be sure there won't be any more in the future. So tying surf to Singular feels wrong. I think the package should have a more general name, as well as the binary. I'm sorry about the necessity of patching Singular to make it use the right binary name, but that does appear necessary at this point. What do you think of the name "surf-geometry", for both the package and the binary?
I think surf-geometry should be good enough. About patching, it should require significant patching to the package itself because surf is hardcoded everywhere in build environment, and almost all, if not all source files have this before the standard GPL text: * surf - visualizing algebraic curves and algebraic surfaces * Copyright (C) 1996-1997 Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet * Erlangen-Nuernberg * 1997-2000 Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz * Authors: Stephan Endrass, Hans Huelf, Ruediger Oertel, * Kai Schneider, Ralf Schmitt, Johannes Beigel [...] ./Makefile.am:bin_PROGRAMS = surf ./Makefile.am:EXTRA_DIST = background.pic Makefile.global aclocal.m4 surf.1 sur.xpm ./Makefile.am:man_MANS = surf.1 ./Makefile.am:pkgdata_DATA = surf.xpm ./Makefile.am:surf: $(LOCAL_OBJECTS) $(GTKGUI_OBJ) ./Makefile.am: $(CXX) $(LOCAL_OBJECTS) $(GTKGUI_OBJ) -o surf $(LDFLAGS) -lXmu -lXext -lXt @X_PRE_LIBS@ @X_LIBS@ -lX11 @X_EXTRA_LIBS@ $(LIBS) -lfl @GTK_LIBS@ -lcups [...] ./gtkgui/showAbout.cc: pixmap = gdk_pixmap_create_from_xpm (window->window, &mask, &style->bg[GTK_STATE_NORMAL], DATADIR "/surf/surf.xpm"); [...] I would vote for renaming to surf-geometry, but not patching the package itself neither Singular, that is, keep the Conflicts with the current surf package.
(In reply to comment #14) > I would vote for renaming to surf-geometry, but not > patching the package itself neither Singular, that > is, keep the Conflicts with the current surf package. You will have to get the Fedora Packaging Committee's approval to keep the Conflicts. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts. I suspect they will tell you to rename the binary instead, but you are welcome to try.
I changed the package to use environment-modules. I should add something like: module load surf-geometry-`rpm -E %_arch` to the sagemath and singular scripts (for sagemath only required in "sage -shell"). New package: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc19.src.rpm
Sorry for the delay, Paulo. There are just a few things to fix: (1) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net says that the source URL ought to look like this: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/surf/surf-%{version}.tar.gz (2) Use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both. (3) Some source files have executable bits set. See below. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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 Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/jamesjer/840244-surf-geometry/licensecheck.txt [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [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 Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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. [x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [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 Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (surf-1.0.6.tar.gz) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm surf-geometry-debuginfo-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc19.src.rpm surf-geometry.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperplane -> hyper plane, hyper-plane, hydroplane surf-geometry.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/surf-geometry-1.0.6/COPYING surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/surf-1.0.6/gtkgui/PrintImageDialog.h surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/surf-1.0.6/gtkgui/PrintImageDialog.cc surf-geometry.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hyperplane -> hyper plane, hyper-plane, hydroplane surf-geometry.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/surf/surf/surf/surf-1.0.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint surf-geometry-debuginfo surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/surf-1.0.6/gtkgui/PrintImageDialog.h surf-geometry-debuginfo.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/surf-1.0.6/gtkgui/PrintImageDialog.cc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): environment-modules libICE.so.6 libSM.so.6 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXi.so.6 libXmu.so.6 libXt.so.6 libc.so.6 libcom_err.so.2 libcrypt.so.1 libcups.so.2 libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgdk-1.2.so.0 libglib-1.2.so.0 libgmodule-1.2.so.0 libgmp.so.10 libgssapi_krb5.so.2 libgtk-1.2.so.0 libjpeg.so.62 libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2) libk5crypto.so.3 libkrb5.so.3 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libtiff.so.5 libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) surf-geometry-debuginfo-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- surf-geometry-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm: surf-geometry = 1.0.6-3.fc19 surf-geometry(x86-32) = 1.0.6-3.fc19 surf-geometry-debuginfo-1.0.6-3.fc19.i686.rpm: surf-geometry-debuginfo = 1.0.6-3.fc19 surf-geometry-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.0.6-3.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 840244 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 External plugins:
May thanks for the review! New package addressing the issues: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pcpa/surf-geometry-1.0.6-4.fc19.src.rpm
You've still got one instance of %{buildroot} in %install, on the mkdir line. Just fix that before you import the package into git. This package is APPROVED.
(In reply to comment #19) > You've still got one instance of %{buildroot} in %install, on the mkdir > line. Just fix that before you import the package into git. This package > is APPROVED. Ops, sorry about another instance of %{buildroot}, I adapted it from 4ti2.spec and for some reason 'got blind" when looking before my adaptations to the sed command. Will correct it before import. Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: surf-geometry Short Description: Tool to visualize some real algebraic geometry Owners: pcpa Branches: InitialCC: pcpa
Git done (by process-git-requests).
The surf-geometry package has been built for rawhide.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: surf-geometry New Branches: f18 Owners: pcpa InitialCC: pcpa Required to simplify a possible sagemath update package by having f19 dependencies built in f18. This package was approved shortly after the f18 branch. It should also simplify the Singular package, that would then not need a spec for f18 and another for f19+.
surf-geometry-1.0.6-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/surf-geometry-1.0.6-4.fc18
surf-geometry-1.0.6-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/surf-geometry-1.0.6-5.fc18
surf-geometry-1.0.6-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.