Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib-0.5.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: METSlib is a metaheuristic modeling framework and optimization toolkit in modern C++ released as Free/Libre/Open Source Software. Model and algorithms are modular: any search algorithm can be applied to the same model. On the other hand no assumption is made on the model, you can work on any problem type: timetabling, assignment problems, vehicle routing, bin-packing and so on. Once you have implemented your model in the problem framework, the library makes easy testing different Tabu Search strategies or even different algorithms (Simulated Annealing or other local search based algorithms) with a few lines of code. Fedora Account System Username: rmattes rpmlint: $ rpmlint metslib.spec ../RPMS/noarch/metslib-devel-0.5.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metaheuristic -> Meta heuristic, Meta-heuristic, Heuristics metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Hi, This is an informal review as I cannot sponsor. I have run a koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5787741 I did notice a build error: configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-static Although this flag is often recommended, as I'm seeing that the configure script doesn't recognise it, it should probably be removed. There appears to be a significant amount of documentation that may be better served by a separate -doc rpm. rpmlint looks clean. I noted Source0 expands to http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/metslib-0.5.3.tgz, which currently provides a 404 error for me. These minor points are the only ones I have been able to raise.
Packages aren't sponsored, people are. ;-) > BuildArch: noarch Mixed feelings here. This is another header-only API with nothing in the guidelines about that. I'd build it arch-specific like Joshua does for his libscrypt submission, because the test-suite involves compiling test programs. That would be the only way to run the test-suite for all target archs. Note that you could still build a metslib-devel.noarch package when moving the BuildArch tag into the subpackage definition. Making sure that no arch-specific files get included in that noarch package would be your responsibility (as before). > License: GPLv3 or CPL The source files claim "or later": GPLv3+ Please double-check. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses A copy of the CPL license text is not included: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > ./metslib/abstract-search.hh Contains only a CPL preamble and doesn't mention GPL. Could you contact upstream for license clarification? > Provides: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Mixed feelings here, too. I would drop this particular virtual package name. You give packagers the choice to depend on _three_ different names, e.g. in BuildRequires: metslib, metslib-devel, metslib-static That complicates queries done with repoquery or other tools. > find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' Superfluous, since no libtool archive files gets build or installed. > %check > make test It overrides Fedora's optflags with -O3. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > Move pkgconfig file to /usr/share/pkgconfig (since package is noarch) Usually I review pkgconfig files. It contains a wrong libdir definition. Even if it were not used, one can retrieve it with pkgconfig: $ pkg-config --variable=libdir metslib /usr/lib And the wrong libdir is used in the CFLAGS, too: $ pkg-config --cflags metslib -I/usr/include/metslib-0.5 -I/usr/lib/metslib-0.5/include
Forgot to mention that /usr/lib/metslib-0.5/include is not used by the package at all.
Did I write "libscrypt" above? Memory failure. ;) Meant "ell" -> bug 993324
Thanks for taking a look. Updated packages: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib-0.5.3-2.fc19.src.rpm I submitted a bug report upstream asking for clarification of the abstract_search.hh license: https://projects.coin-or.org/metslib/ticket/3 I will also ask about including a copy of the license text. As far as the BuildArch: goes, we ran into the same sort of issue with the eigen3 package recently. It is good to be able to run the unit tests on all architectures, but there isn't a need to have arch specific packages. We ended up doing what you suggested: only marking the -devel package as noarch, so that all builders will run the unit tests, and disabling the debuginfo generation since there are no binaries to strip. I did the same to this package. I provided %{name} = %{version}-%{release} more for convenience at install-time rather than for packaging purposes. I agree it's not really necessary though so I removed it. The -O3 and .la removal have been fixed. I also removed all references to the libdir from the pkgconfig file (they're not necessary.) $ rpmlint metslib.spec ../RPMS/noarch/metslib-devel-0.5.3-2.fc19.noarch.rpm metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metaheuristic -> Meta heuristic, Meta-heuristic, Heuristics metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Modify configure instead of configure.ac to remove -O3 to avoid having to regenerate configure.
Good call. I changed the sed statement, update is here: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib-0.5.3-3.fc19.src.rpm rpmlint: $ rpmlint metslib.spec ../RPMS/noarch/metslib-devel-0.5.3-3.fc19.noarch.rpm metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metaheuristic -> Meta heuristic, Meta-heuristic, Heuristics metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5843846
FYI - I've filed https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/337 to discuss header only libraries a bit more.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 3123200 bytes in 445 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - It should require libstdc++-devel - License should be GPLv3+ or CPL ===== MUST items ===== 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]: 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 without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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 [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in metslib- devel [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/metslib-0.5.3/review-metslib/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: metslib-devel-0.5.3-3.fc19.noarch.rpm metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metaheuristic -> Meta heuristic, Meta-heuristic, Heuristics metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- metslib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config Provides -------- metslib-devel: metslib-devel metslib-static pkgconfig(metslib) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/metslib/metslib-0.5.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 33142aa3be7c79b966a14c50eb39d0468e98ff365f5c7e055a93ea77eda04c3d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 33142aa3be7c79b966a14c50eb39d0468e98ff365f5c7e055a93ea77eda04c3d Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
It need not require libstdc++-devel, since gcc-c++ (and its deps) is considered part of the minimum build environment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #10) > It need not require libstdc++-devel, since gcc-c++ (and its deps) is > considered part of the minimum build environment: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 I'm not asking to BR it, but to Require it. I can go either way, but plenty of other packages do it and it makes sense to me.
That's nothing different. The exceptions also apply to ordinary installations. For compiling C/C++ code, a compiler is needed. gcc-c++ pulls in libstdc++-devel, gcc pulls in cpp and glibc-devel, and we don't Requires glibc-devel in all C based -devel packages either. > plenty of other packages do it It's a [minor] packaging mistake for most of them: $ repoquery --whatrequires libstdc++-devel --exactdeps|grep -v i686 armadillo-devel-0:3.910.0-1.fc20.x86_64 clang-0:3.3-0.8.rc3.fc20.x86_64 fltk-devel-0:1.3.0-11.fc20.x86_64 gcc-c++-0:4.8.1-6.fc20.x86_64 libEMF-devel-0:1.0.7-3.fc20.x86_64 llvm-devel-0:3.3-0.8.rc3.fc20.x86_64 zipios++-devel-0:0.1.5.9-10.fc20.x86_64 $ repoquery --whatrequires glibc-devel --exactdeps|grep -v i686|grep -v glibc|grep -v gcc|wc -l 9 $ repoquery --whatrequires gcc-c++ --exactdeps|grep -v i686|wc -l 13 $ repoquery --whatrequires gcc --exactdeps|grep -v ^gcc|grep -v i686|wc -l 34
Okay, sounds good.
I added a -doc subpackage, and changed the license field to GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3. You can find the update here: Spec URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib.spec SRPM URL: http://rmattes.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/metslib/metslib-0.5.3-4.fc19.src.rpm $ rpmlint metslib.spec ../RPMS/noarch/metslib-* metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metaheuristic -> Meta heuristic, Meta-heuristic, Heuristics metslib-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Looks good. Approved.
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: metslib Short Description: Metaheuristic modeling framework and optimization toolkit in modern C++ Owners: rmattes Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
metslib-0.5.3-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metslib-0.5.3-4.fc19
metslib-0.5.3-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
metslib-0.5.3-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.