[Bug 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc ||22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-06-29 20:12:53 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc22 -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: carat Short Description: Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables Upstream URL: http://wwwb.math.rwth-aachen.de/carat/ Owners: jjames Branches: f22 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #5) Oops... even though they are NOT blockers. You probably figured out what I meant, but wanted to clarify, anyway... ;-) :-) Thank you very much for the review. I suppose I could host that file somewhere, but it is such a simple, tiny little file, it hardly seems worth the effort. -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474
Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us ---
Approved. Thanks. Appreciate you taking the time to explain things on the
SHOULD items, even though they are blockers. Each time I go through this, it's
a learning experience.
Regarding the SourceX - you could consider just hosting your module
somewhere,
like bitbucket, github, fedorapeople, etc. - but that's entirely up to you.
Just a thought... I try not to be too pedantic. ;-)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
ISSUES
==
- Should: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
- Should: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in carat-
tables , carat-doc
- Should: SourceX is a working URL.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: 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. 25 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gbcox/bugzilla_fedora_review/1226474-carat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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 153600 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the
[Bug 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 --- Comment #5 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us --- (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #4) Approved. Thanks. Appreciate you taking the time to explain things on the SHOULD items, even though they are blockers. Each time I go through this, it's a learning experience. Oops... even though they are NOT blockers. You probably figured out what I meant, but wanted to clarify, anyway... ;-) -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474
--- Comment #2 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us ---
Jerry,
Could you also explain carat.module.in (Source1:) - I having problems figuring
out where it is coming from? I've not had my coffee so maybe that is the
problem. ;-)
Also, please just review Comment 1.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
ISSUES
==
- Must: 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 %license. - File in tarball as
COPYING.
- Must: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- Should: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
- Should: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
- Should: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in carat-
tables , carat-doc
- Should: SourceX is a working URL.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: 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 %license.
[x]: 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. 25 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gbcox/bugzilla_fedora_review/1226474-carat/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 153600 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from
[Bug 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474
Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #2)
Jerry,
Could you also explain carat.module.in (Source1:) - I having problems
figuring out where it is coming from? I've not had my coffee so maybe that
is the problem. ;-)
Also, please just review Comment 1.
Strangely, those are related. :-) So carat.module.in is the source file for
environment-modules. I wrote it myself. Consider it part of the Fedora
packaging. It gives a user the ability to inject the directory containing the
binaries from this package into PATH. That way, we avoid poisoning PATH with
generically named binaries unless the user really, really wants them in PATH.
- Must: 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 %license. - File in tarball as
COPYING.
- Must: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Yes, an oversight there. Corrected.
- Should: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
Yes, unfortunately upstream's Makefile is broken in that regard. I haven't yet
figured out how to fix it.
- Should: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
The source package does the license, I just forgot to include it in the rpm
package.
- Should: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in carat-
tables , carat-doc
This is on purpose. The carat-tables subpackage was separated out because it
contains large noarch data, so the main package depends on it. The carat-doc
package does not need anything else, since it contains only documentation.
- Should: SourceX is a working URL.
No can do, since upstream doesn't give a hoot about environment-modules.
New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/carat/carat.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/carat/carat-2.1b1.19.07.2008-2.fc23.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
[Bug 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 --- Comment #1 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #0) Due to its specialized nature and some generically named binaries, this package uses environment-modules to access its binaries. This should not present a problem as it will be accessed primarily via GAP, rather than directly from the command line. I agree, and I think you've got this covered. I haven't been able to find any Fedora guidance on this particular situation, but did find: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html If you could take a look down at item 9.9 - Environment Variables. I believe that since you will be accessing via GAP as you stated it really isn't an issue. I'm going through the review form and should have it finished by tomorrow. -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gb...@bzb.us Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gb...@bzb.us -- 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 1226474] Review Request: carat - Crystallographic AlgoRithms And Tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226474 Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us changed: What|Removed |Added 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
