https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335
--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se> --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2) > Complete review below - not too many issues here. > > Package Review > ============== > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION, > CITATION > > ---> This looks fine. Already discussed before (bz#1305333, bz#1305334 Both DESCRIPTION and CITATION are used at runtime - should not be %doc. > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: R-Rcpp : /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h > > ---> What about this file? Looking at the contents, this sounds like > something that is appropriate in the main package. Please verify. This file is read from inside the code, e.g. Rcpp/R/Rcpp.package.skeleton.R line 156: header <- readLines(file.path(skeleton, "rcpp_hello_world.h")) > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSL", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or > generated". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in > > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/licensecheck.txt > > > ---> Multiple licenses must be mentioned in spec file. > > from licensecheck - > > > BSL > --- > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/utils/tinyformat.h > > BSL (v1.0) > ---------- > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/cat.hpp > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/macros/config.hpp > > GPL (v2 or later) > ----------------- > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/examples/SugarPerformance/Timer.h > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp.h > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Benchmark/Timer.h > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DataFrame.h > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/Date.h > R-Rcpp-0.12.3/Rcpp/inst/include/Rcpp/DateVector.h > [.....] > > Change spec file to > > License: GPLv2+ and BSL Thank you for this one. License tag changed to "GPLv2+ and Boost". According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses the proper tag for the Boost Software License is "Boost", not "BSL". > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: Mock build failed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint > > ---> This k=just keeps happening here. But, I can install the package no > problem. > > Installation errors > ------------------- > INFO: installing package(s): > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > 0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > devel-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > examples-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. > # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ > --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > 0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > devel-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > examples-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305335-R-Rcpp/results/R-Rcpp- > debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts This is the known bug in fedora-review I mentioned earlier (Bug 1264803). As you can see the debuginfo package is listed twice in the list of packages to be installed, and dnf refuses to make the install due to this duplication. This affects all reviews that have a debuginfo package. > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > R-Rcpp-devel-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > R-Rcpp-examples-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > R-Rcpp-debuginfo-0.12.3-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > R-Rcpp-0.12.3-1.fc24.src.rpm > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/stdVector.cpp > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.h > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_module.cpp > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world.cpp > R-Rcpp.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/discovery/cxx0x.R 644 /bin/env > > ---> Please check/clarify these ... > > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/Num.cpp > R-Rcpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/R/library/Rcpp/skeleton/rcpp_hello_world_attributes.cpp The R-Rcpp package is used to integrate C++ code with R. To simplify this task the package provides a skeleton feature, which creates a template C++ code that you can use a the starting point for your C++ integration. The source files in the skeleton directory are used by this feature. So they are not part of the source code that is compiled to create the R-Rcpp package itself, but datafiles needed by one of the features the package provides. The broken thumbpdf has been fixed in Fedora 23: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0e583ec035 So I now only disable it for Fedora 22. Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-Rcpp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/R-Rcpp-0.12.3-2.fc24.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
