Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-optim.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-optim-1.0.16-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Non-linear optimization toolkit.
I will take the review.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3133932
Ping José? Are you going to do the review or not?
Looks like José is MIA. Taking over review.
rpmlint output: octave-optim.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %40unreal octave-optim.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge octave-optim.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/packinfo/.autoload octave-optim.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/packinfo/.autoload octave-optim.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun cp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. These are expected. ** You are using the noarch template for arch dependent packages. This is why I ran recently into trouble with two of your existing packages. Replace Requires: octave with Requires: octave(api) = %{octave_api} ** The command for i in %{octpkgdir}/doc/figures/2D_slice-3.eps2 %{octpkgdir}/doc/figures/optim_tutorial_slice.eps; do iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf-8 %{buildroot}/$i > %{buildroot}/$i.conv && mv -f %{buildroot}/$i.conv %{buildroot}/$i done; looks *really* odd. Did you get an rpmlint warning about text in the wrong encoding? I'm not a PostScript expert, but I'd leave these files as-is. ** Your summary is sloppy. Please change it to something of the lines of "A non-linear optimization tool kit for Octave". Also the description could be better, along the lines of This package contains a non-linear optimization tool kit for Octave, containing functions for curve fitting and the following minimization algorithms: * Nead-Miller simplex * Conjugate Gradients * Memory limited BFGS * Simulated Annealing ** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - As far as I can see, this is plain GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum optim-1.0.16.tar.gz ../SOURCES/optim-1.0.16.tar.gz a0ed1c8bbd7d9ddafc6f5fab08aba1c5 optim-1.0.16.tar.gz a0ed1c8bbd7d9ddafc6f5fab08aba1c5 ../SOURCES/optim-1.0.16.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. ?? - The optimization flags aren't shown in the build process. Everything seems to be alright, though. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned, architecture dependent dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
Please add a '-v' flag in the Makefile, so that the commands used in the build are displayed. I also wouldn't mind a comment about Patch0, e.g. "Fix the address of FSF."
And why are you using %octave_cmd pkg build '-verbose' '-nodeps' %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch} %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir} instead of %octave_pkg_build ?
(In reply to comment #5) Thanks for taking the review! http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-optim-1.0.16-2.fc15.src.rpm I've appled most of your suggestions, with the exception of the following: > looks *really* odd. Did you get an rpmlint warning about text in the wrong > encoding? I'm not a PostScript expert, but I'd leave these files as-is. You are right, it is wrong. But now I get the following lint warnings: octave-optim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/doc/figures/2D_slice-3.eps2 octave-optim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/doc/figures/optim_tutorial_slice.eps I think these warnings are bogus, they are coming from a binary portion of the eps file. > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > NEEDSWORK Well, the DESCRIPTION file contained in the source archive lists GFDL as well as GPLv2+, so that's why it is listed in the RPM license field as well. > Please add a '-v' flag in the Makefile, so that the commands used in the build > are displayed. Sorry where do you want -v exactly? > And why are you using > > %octave_cmd pkg build '-verbose' '-nodeps' > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch} %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir} > > instead of > > %octave_pkg_build ? If I use octave_pkg_build, I get a build error: error: the following dependencies where unsatisfied: optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.11 optim needs struct >= 1.0.9 even though octave-miscellaneous and octave-struct are installed. Seems there is a problem with the dependency detection.
(In reply to comment #8) > > looks *really* odd. Did you get an rpmlint warning about text in the wrong > > encoding? I'm not a PostScript expert, but I'd leave these files as-is. > > You are right, it is wrong. > > But now I get the following lint warnings: > > octave-optim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/doc/figures/2D_slice-3.eps2 > octave-optim.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/octave/packages/optim-1.0.16/doc/figures/optim_tutorial_slice.eps > > I think these warnings are bogus, they are coming from a binary portion of the > eps file. Yes. rpmlint often causes false alarms. > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > > NEEDSWORK > > Well, the DESCRIPTION file contained in the source archive lists GFDL as well > as GPLv2+, so that's why it is listed in the RPM license field as well. OK. Now I see that optim-mini-howto-2.lyx specifies that it is under the GFDL. But I also now notice that many files that were not examined by licensecheck specify GPLv3+. So the correct tag is License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GFDL. I don't see the point in shipping a LyX file (or the Makefile!), so you should compile the documentation by adding BuildRequires: tex(latex) and running make -C doc DVIPDF=dvipdf optim-mini-howto-2.pdf in %build. Then, at the end of %install run rm -rf %{octpkgdir}/doc to get rid of the unnecessary stuff, and add %doc doc/optim-mini-howto-2.pdf doc/development/interfaces.txt > > Please add a '-v' flag in the Makefile, so that the commands used in the build > > are displayed. > > Sorry where do you want -v exactly? Even though the make process clearly compiles something, the compiler flags are not shown. According to the man page, you should add -v flag to the mkoctfile commands: -v, --verbose Echo commands as they are executed. > If I use octave_pkg_build, I get a build error: > error: the following dependencies where unsatisfied: > optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.11 > optim needs struct >= 1.0.9 > > even though octave-miscellaneous and octave-struct are installed. Seems there > is a problem with the dependency detection. Then please file a bug against octave. Maybe the -nodeps flag needs to be added to the octave_pkg_build macro.
http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc15.src.rpm Shipping the docs as pdf (besides actually making sense) also gets rid of the eps rpmlint warnings
Build flags are now shown, and they are correct. Other issues have been adressed as well, so this package is APPROVED Since the license is a bit complicated, it wouldn't hurt having a comment such as #C++ files are GPLv2+, .m files are GPLv2+ and GPLv3+, documentation is GFDL Before you build, please make sure that octave-3.4.2-2.fc1{5,6} is present in the buildroot. The update is still in updates-testing, and for some reason the override drops out every once in a while.
Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: octave-optim Short Description: A non-linear optimization tool kit for Octave Owners: sailer Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1
octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc15
Package octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc16.1 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
octave-optim-1.0.16-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.