Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/opengrm-ngram/opengrm-ngram.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/opengrm-ngram/opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The OpenGrm NGram library is used for making and modifying n-gram language models encoded as weighted finite-state transducers (FSTs). It makes use of functionality in the OpenFst library to create, access and manipulate n-gram models. Operations for counting, smoothing, pruning, applying, and evaluating models are among those provided. Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Hi Jerry, I have a couple of questions: * Why do you especially require gsl-devel%{?_isa}, openfst-devel%{?_isa} in the devel package? Do you think it is appropriate to add a brief comment as requested in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ? * Shouldn't the sonames be 1.0.3 instead of 0.0.0? (/usr/lib64/libngram.so.0.0.0) The rest of the package is fine for me. Please reply to this comment and I'll post the formal review
(In reply to comment #1) > * Why do you especially require gsl-devel%{?_isa}, openfst-devel%{?_isa} in > the devel package? Do you think it is appropriate to add a brief comment as > requested in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ? Because the header files installed by this package explicitly #include header files provided by the gsl-devel and openfst-devel packages. Furthermore, the RPM dependency generator isn't able to determine those dependencies on its own, so explicit requires are necessary. This is pretty common for -devel packages, so I didn't think it was worth a comment. If you would like a comment, however, I'm happy to add one. > * Shouldn't the sonames be 1.0.3 instead of 0.0.0? > (/usr/lib64/libngram.so.0.0.0) Hmmmmmm.... I see this in src/lib/Makefile.am: libngram_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 0:0:0 So apparently upstream did this on purpose. I don't know why.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4810175 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [?]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package devel, %package tools Yes they are present, but not detected [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. The header files installed by this package explicitly #include header files provided by the gsl-devel and openfst-devel packages [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Documentation is small (size is 10240 bytes) [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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) [?]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments They are manually generated man files [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm opengrm-ngram-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm opengrm-ngram-devel-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc17.src.rpm opengrm-ngram-tools-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm opengrm-ngram.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libngram.so.0.0.0 exit.5 opengrm-ngram-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation opengrm-ngram.src: W: invalid-url Source1: opengrm-ngram-man.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint opengrm-ngram opengrm-ngram-devel opengrm-ngram-tools opengrm-ngram-debuginfo opengrm-ngram.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libngram.so.0.0.0 exit.5 opengrm-ngram-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) opengrm-ngram-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): opengrm-ngram-devel-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gsl-devel(x86-64) libngram.so.0()(64bit) openfst-devel(x86-64) opengrm-ngram(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-tools-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfst.so.0()(64bit) libfstfar.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgsl.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libngram.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) opengrm-ngram(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: libngram.so.0()(64bit) opengrm-ngram = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: opengrm-ngram-debuginfo = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-devel-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: opengrm-ngram-devel = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-devel(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-tools-1.0.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: opengrm-ngram-tools = 1.0.3-1.fc17 opengrm-ngram-tools(x86-64) = 1.0.3-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.openfst.org/twiki/pub/GRM/NGramDownload/opengrm-ngram-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 792729b111da2b30a758ebaef97794873755c7e9e3bf38d0e32402eda4fb478c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 792729b111da2b30a758ebaef97794873755c7e9e3bf38d0e32402eda4fb478c Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-21 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 888598
Jerry, thanks for your comments, I found everything okay. Something you might want to consider: * Ask upstream about the strange soname * Ask upstream if they can fix the "shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libngram.so.0.0.0 exit.5" If they change something, you could push a future update. The package is APPROVED
Sure, I'll talk to upstream about those two issues. Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: opengrm-ngram Short Description: Library for making and modifying n-gram language models Owners: jjames Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc18
opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
opengrm-ngram-1.0.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.