Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain-1.0.8-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: SphinxTrain is Carnegie Mellon University's open source acoustic model trainer. It contains the scripts and instructions necessary for building models for the CMU Sphinx Recognizer. Fedora Account System Username: jjames
I'll review this one.
Hm, I have this strange feeling this isn't your first package... Some initial remarks: - Basically, SphinxTrain seems to be a C/C++ core with perl and python bindings. Why are the python bindings in a subpackage, put not the perl ones? I see that the perl code is in a scripts library... are they essential enough to make the core useless without them? - Shouldn't the python subpackage be named python-SphinxTrain rather than SphinxTrain-python according to [1]? [1]http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29
Have been trying to understand this beast a little better. To my understanding this is a set of program/scripts used to create language definitions (or something like that). Reading the docs the overall model seems to be to run the existing scripts and programs or to extend the package using the python bindings. If so, this somewhat changes the focus: if the perl scripts are intended to be used as-is rather than imported from other user-supplied scripts, is it OK to Provide: the perl interfaces? To me, this looks questionable. That's not to say I'm sure, though. Thoughts?
(In reply to comment #2) > - Basically, SphinxTrain seems to be a C/C++ core with perl and python > bindings. Why are the python bindings in a subpackage, put not > the perl ones? I see that the perl code is in a scripts library... are they > essential enough to make the core useless without them? Yes, the core requires the perl scripts. > - Shouldn't the python subpackage be named python-SphinxTrain rather than > SphinxTrain-python according to [1]? You're right. Fixed. (In reply to comment #3) > Have been trying to understand this beast a little better. To my > understanding this is a set of program/scripts used to create language > definitions (or something like that). Reading the docs the overall model > seems to be to run the existing scripts and programs or to extend the > package using the python bindings. > > If so, this somewhat changes the focus: if the perl scripts are intended to > be used as-is rather than imported from other user-supplied scripts, is it > OK to Provide: the perl interfaces? To me, this looks questionable. That's > not to say I'm sure, though. > > Thoughts? I'm not sure, either, but it's easy enough to filter the perl Provides out. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain-1.0.8-2.fc19.src.rpm
Hm... that package is un-installable, the perl Requires: is still there and not resolved. If you filter the provides you must also filter the requires the same way, although probably using __requires_exclude. (__requires_exclude_from will filter all perl deps, and that's not really what we want). Furthermore, I have build errors on rawhide/x86_64. Attaching build logs. Just to make myself clear: I have the complete review done, and these are the only open issues there is. But I'll wait pasting the complete review until all is fixed.
Created attachment 680512 [details] Failed build log fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Verified that the build completes OK on i386. Attaching patch filtering.
Created attachment 680549 [details] Filtering update patch
Thanks for the patch, Alec. Here's a new build that incorporates your patch and fixes the x86_64 build failure. Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sphinxtrain/sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc19.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. --OK/al [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/893132-sphinxtrain/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc18.i686.rpm sphinxtrain.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sphinxtrain.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sphinxtrain 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sphinxtrain sphinxtrain.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sphinxtrain.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sphinxtrain 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sphinxtrain (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python libblas.so.3 libc.so.6 libdl.so.2 libfst.so.0 libfstfar.so.0 libfstfarscript.so.0 libfstscript.so.0 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) liblapack.so.3 libm.so.6 libngram.so.0 libpthread.so.0 libpulse-simple.so.0 libpulse.so.0 libsamplerate.so.0 libsndfile.so.1 libsphinxad.so.0 libsphinxbase.so.1 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2) perl(B::Deparse) perl(Data::Dumper) perl(Exporter) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(File::Path) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Spec::Functions) perl(File::Temp) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::File) perl(POSIX) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(constant) perl(encoding) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-sphinxtrain: /usr/bin/python libc.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpython2.7.so.1.0 python(abi) = 2.7 rtld(GNU_HASH) scipy(x86-32) sphinxbase-python(x86-32) Provides -------- sphinxtrain: sphinxtrain sphinxtrain(x86-32) python-sphinxtrain python-sphinxtrain = 1.0.8-3.fc18 python-sphinxtrain(x86-32) = 1.0.8-3.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/cmusphinx/sphinxtrain-1.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 548e3e513ceaa1b2fd6fd7ed1724349e0a4bf7bdeb11be9c91787e6f2b865203 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 548e3e513ceaa1b2fd6fd7ed1724349e0a4bf7bdeb11be9c91787e6f2b865203 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (d8c3112) last change: 2012-12-20 Buildroot used: fedora-18-i386 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 893132
All issues fixed. ***APPROVED
Thank you very much for the review, Alec. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sphinxtrain Short Description: Acoustic model trainer for CMU's Sphinx tools Owners: jjames Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc18
sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
sphinxtrain-1.0.8-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
Could you please also request an f17 branch? We would like to offer simon (0.4.0, which recently passed review, with the (Pocket)Sphinx backend) on F17 and it needs sphinxtrain at runtime for parts of its functionality.
Hmmmm, that's tricky. F17 is still on sphinxbase 0.7. Version 1.0.8 of sphinxtrain, the only version that has ever been built for any Fedora release, requires sphinxbase 0.8. But updating F17 from sphinxbase 0.7 to 0.8 will probably require also updating pocketsphinx to 0.8 (and may affect the cmusphinx3 package as well). The difference between 0.7 and 0.8 is pretty big, so I'm really reluctant to push all of this into F17. The other approach would be to build an older version of sphinxtrain that can use sphinxbase 0.7. But I did not submit sphinxtrain for review until version 1.0.8 came out for a reason; the older versions were difficult to build for Fedora for various reasons. I don't know how to proceed with this request. Do you have to have simon for F17? Can it not be made available just for F18+?
I see now that the sphinxtrain executable which Simon looks for was only added in 1.0.8, so an older version of sphinxtrain probably won't be of much use anyway. :-( So don't waste your time with old versions.
Let's forget about this for F17, we will just ship Simon without a hard dependency on sphinxtrain in F17, and I guess I could put up F17 builds of the Sphinx 0.8 stack on repos.fedorapeople.org.