Bug 861922 (bibutils) - Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
Summary: Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: bibutils
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: ghc-hs-bibutils
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-10-01 11:22 UTC by Jens Petersen
Modified: 2012-11-19 02:56 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: bibutils-4.15-4.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-11-19 02:56:53 UTC
sanjay.ankur: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jens Petersen 2012-10-01 11:22:11 UTC
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Conversion between various bibliography formats
Fedora Account System Username: petersen

Needed for ghc-hs-bibutils -> ghc-citeproc -> pandoc
to enable pandoc to handle bibliographies.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4546275

Comment 2 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-10-02 03:06:43 UTC
Hi Jens,

I'll review this one.

Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-10-02 03:39:19 UTC
Hello,

[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue

[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[+] Spec has consistant macro usage.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[?] License field in spec matches
^^
The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere in
the source. 

[+] License file included in package
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh bibutils.spec
Getting http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bibutils/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz to
/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
  0     0    0     0    0     0      0      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--     0
100  436k  100  436k    0     0   424k      0  0:00:01  0:00:01 --:--:--  424k
b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3  /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3
/home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz
removed `/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz'
removed directory: `/tmp/review'

[+] BuildRequires correct
[+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

[+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[+] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
[+] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
^^
An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires

[+] .la files are removed.


[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
[+] Package has no duplicate files in %files.
[+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
[+] Package owns all the directories it creates.
[+] No rpmlint output.
^^
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/bibutils.spec ./bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/bibutils-*
../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure
--install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
--dynamic
../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic
bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir
%{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic
bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec

-> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay.


bibutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter
converts, inter-converts, interconnects
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib

-> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them

bibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5

-> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream

bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 29 warnings.
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$

-> Look okay. Please correct the spelling errors if applicable.


[+] final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm [-]qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.)
== bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.src.rpm ==
Provides:

Requires:
tcsh

== bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
bibutils = 4.15-2.fc19
bibutils(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19

Requires:
libbibutils.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)

== bibutils-debuginfo-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
bibutils-debuginfo = 4.15-2.fc19
bibutils-debuginfo(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19

Requires:

== bibutils-devel-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
bibutils-devel = 4.15-2.fc19
bibutils-devel(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19
pkgconfig(bibutils) = 4.15

Requires:
/usr/bin/pkg-config
bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19
libbibutils.so.4()(64bit)

== bibutils-libs-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19
bibutils-libs(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19
libbibutils.so.4()(64bit)

Requires:
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)

[ankur@ankur result]$
^^
Looks good

SHOULD Items:

[+] Should build in mock.
[+] Should build on all supported archs
[+] Should function as described.
[+] Should have sane scriptlets.
[+] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
[+] Should have dist tag
[+] Should package latest version
[+] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1. Licence clarification
2. Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage)

Everything else looks good. Almost good to go.

Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur

Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2012-10-02 10:56:24 UTC
Hi Ankur, thanks for reviewing the package.

(In reply to comment #3)
> [?] License field in spec matches
> ^^
> The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere
> in the source. 

Right, the problem is the source files do not state explicitly
that they are GPLv2+ (they just say "GPL"), so I defaulted to GPL+.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F

I guess I should ask the upstream maintainer to clarify the GPL version anyway.

However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file
in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+.
I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+, perhaps?

> [+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> ^^
> An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better?

Good point - fixing

> bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter
> converts, inter-converts, interconnects

changing this to "converts"

> bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
> 
> -> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay.

Yeah, for better or worse it is a tcsh script!

> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml
> bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib
> 
> -> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them

Ok let me build the manpage included in the src.

> bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15
> exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
> 
> -> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream

Ok will ask upstream about this too.

> 1. Licence clarification
> 2. Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage)
> 
> Everything else looks good. Almost good to go.

Thanks.

Updated package should hopefully fix the remaining issues:

Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec
SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4550007

Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2012-10-03 01:43:12 UTC
> However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file
> in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+.
> I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+,
> perhaps?

Correction: the manpage states itself is GPL version 2.

"This manual page is distributed under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License."

Anyway I am writing to upstream now hoping to get some clarification on the GPL version.

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2012-10-04 04:15:32 UTC
> SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm

(Sorry that was supposed to be -3.fc17!)

After communicating with the upstream author and maintainer,
I understand his intention is that the package should be GPLv2 I think.

Anyway until there is a new release which clarify the intended GPL version
I am going back to GPL+ for the source code and GPLv2 for the manpage.

Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec
SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-4.fc17.src.rpm

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4557897 (rawhide)

Comment 7 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2012-10-18 03:39:29 UTC
Hi Jens,

Looks good to me. Licensing is okay too. Please remember to update the license whenever upstream makes the change.

XXX APPROVED XXX 

Thanks,
Ankur

Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2012-10-18 12:13:35 UTC
Thanks, FranciscoD


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bibutils
Short Description: Bibliography conversion tools
Owners: petersen
Branches: f18 f17 f16 el6
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-10-18 12:51:11 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-10-19 07:54:50 UTC
bibutils-4.15-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc17

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-10-19 07:55:00 UTC
bibutils-4.15-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.el6

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-10-19 07:55:10 UTC
bibutils-4.15-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc18

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2012-10-19 07:55:20 UTC
bibutils-4.15-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc16

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2012-10-19 13:07:06 UTC
bibutils-4.15-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 15 Jens Petersen 2012-10-26 05:03:41 UTC
Opps - removing the erroneous initialCC - this is not a Haskell specific package.


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