[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||coin-or-lemon-1.3-6.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-06-17 19:23:06 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- %define libemon_soversion 0.1
Use %global instead of %define
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
- Reminder:
%{_pkgdocdir} macro works differently in Fedora20, package building fails
now in f19.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927156
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs
- Minor warnings
coin-or-lemon.src:85: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
Needed for the patch.
coin-or-lemon.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 11)
Please, fix them.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[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]: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated, BSD (2 clause). 169 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1061985-coin-or-lemon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
= 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.
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #6 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v3/coin-or-lemon.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v3/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927465 F19 koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6927460 Description: LEMON stands for Library for Efficient Modeling and Optimization in Networks. It is a C++ template library providing efficient implementations of common data structures and algorithms with focus on combinatorial optimization tasks connected mainly with graphs and networks. Fedora Account System Username: amluto Also, what's this? [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. I'm not seeing that in a self-review. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #6)
Also, what's this?
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
I'm not seeing that in a self-review.
It's related to the %{_pkgdocdir} directory that's co-owned by 'coin-or-lemon'
and 'coin-or-lemon-doc'. To me, it's okay because if separately installed both
packages need that directory. Ignore it.
Package approved.
--
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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: coin-or-lemon Short Description: A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms Upstream URL: http://lemon.cs.elte.hu/trac/lemon Owners: amluto Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc19 -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #11 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- If you find yourself needing GLPK support, let me know and I can try to hack around the upstream bug that's currently blocking it. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-lemon-1.3-3.fc20 -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@mit.edu) | --- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- Spec URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v2/coin-or-lemon.spec SRPM URL: http://web.mit.edu/luto/www/fedora/coin-or-lemon_v2/coin-or-lemon-1.3-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6925124 Description: LEMON stands for Library for Efficient Modeling and Optimization in Networks. It is a C++ template library providing efficient implementations of common data structures and algorithms with focus on combinatorial optimization tasks connected mainly with graphs and networks. Fedora Account System Username: amluto This version should be a lot better. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||l...@mit.edu Flags||needinfo?(l...@mit.edu) --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- I need of this package for others projects. Please, close this review as soon as possible. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 --- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- I should be able to get to this tomorrow or Monday. I suspect the biggest issue will be the /usr/share/lemon thing: there's already a package called 'lemon'. Oops. I'll probably rename it to /usr/share/coin-or-lemon. -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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
[Bug 1061985] Review Request: coin-or-lemon - A C++ template library providing many common graph algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061985
Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|anto.tra...@gmail.com |
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com ---
- BSL (v1.0) is Boost Software License (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
It's okay in Fedora.
- lemon-1.3/lemon/random.h is installed by this package and licensed with a
BSD.
Please, fix the License tag.
- Your package put a cmake/ directory in %{_datadir}/lemon owned by 'lemon'
package.
'lemon' is a Requires package.
- '/usr/share/lemon/cmake' '/usr/share/doc/lemon' must be owned.
- Use -p option in
cp -r doc/html %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/lemon/
- Please, leave a comment/link for the patch.
- Try to agree with upstream about lib soname and /usr/lib issues, even
by considering how you may intervene in the packaging process
(read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanek/Draft_-_Downstream_.so_name_versioning)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSL (v1.0), Unknown or generated, BSD (2 clause). 169 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1061985-coin-or-lemon/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/lemon/html, /usr/share/doc/lemon,
/usr/share/lemon/cmake
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/lemon,
/usr/share/lemon, /usr/share/lemon/cmake, /usr/share/doc/lemon/html
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using
