[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Till Hofmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-05-11 21:29:55 |2016-05-15 05:00:09



-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-be5a82f610

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.el7 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-be5a82f610

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-05-11 21:29:55



-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a6872b25da

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc71aae72b

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-875fbae2f8

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-875fbae2f8

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a6872b25da

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc71aae72b

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Fedora Update System  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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/orocos-bfl

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #11 from Till Hofmann  ---
Thank you for reviewing!

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #9)
> The test failure on i686 is merely a rounding issue:
> > 2: pdf_test.cpp:1135:Assertion
> > 2: Test name: PdfTest::testMixture
> > 2: equality assertion failed
> > 2: - Expected: 0.0590505944295115
> > 2: - Actual  : 0.0590505944295115
> 
> Therefore I assume it's actually working, all other tests pass.
> 
> On the other hand, on ARM the test result is completely off:
> > 5: model_test.cpp:99:Assertion
> > 5: Test name: ModelTest::testDiscreteSystemModel
> > 5: equality assertion failed
> > 5: - Expected: 0.98
> > 5: - Actual  : 0.005
> 
> To me, this looks like a bug and I cannot say if it's working on ARM.
> Therefore, I excluded ARM.
> I also added more detailed explanations to the Spec file.

Okay, that makes sense.  I see no further issues, so this package is 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #9 from Till Hofmann  ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl-0.8.99-5.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23.src.rpm

koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13930772

Thank you for your comments.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #8)
> Issues
> ==
> 1. In multiple licensing scenarios, the package must contain a comment
>explaining the breakdown: see
>   
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> 
>This can be accomplished in several ways; see the link for some ideas.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that. I actually had to change the license
again after checking all files manually. All the GPLv2+ licensed files are
tests which are not shipped. Also, the exception is on GPLv2 licensed files,
not on LGPLv2+ licensed files. Now it should be correct and I also added an
explanation why they use multiple licenses.

> 
> 3. The license file is not installed if only the -doc subpackage is
> installed.

Fixed.

> 
> 4. If you are concerned about the quality of the documentation, there are a
> few
>steps you could take to improve it:
>a. Replace "BuildRequires: doxygen" with "BuildRequires: doxygen-latex"
>b. Add "BuildRequires: ghostscript-core"
>c. Change the definition of INCLUDE_PATH in Doxyfile from the empty string
>   to /usr/include/boost.  Unfortunately, then doxygen can't find the
>   standard header files, so you have to add the default g++ include paths
>   to INCLUDE_PATH as well.  You can get these by running
> 
>   cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null
> 
>   and looking at the lines of output between "#include <...> search
> starts
>   here:" and "End of search list."  For example, you could do this just
>   before running doxygen:
> 
>   includedirs=$(cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null 2>&1 | sed -e '1,/#include
> <\.\.\.> search/d' -e '/End of search list/,$d' | tr '\n' ' ')
>   sed -i "s|INCLUDE_PATH[[:blank:]]*= |&/usr/include/boost
> $includedirs|" Doxyfile

Thanks, I did exactly that.

> 
> 5. I wonder why one test failure on i386 warrants not running the tests for
>that platform, but one test failure on ARM warrants not building the
> package
>at all for that platform.  Can you explain?  (The explanation should
>probably go into a comment in the spec file.)

The test failure on i686 is merely a rounding issue:
> 2: pdf_test.cpp:1135:Assertion
> 2: Test name: PdfTest::testMixture
> 2: equality assertion failed
> 2: - Expected: 0.0590505944295115
> 2: - Actual  : 0.0590505944295115

Therefore I assume it's actually working, all other tests pass.

On the other hand, on ARM the test result is completely off:
> 5: model_test.cpp:99:Assertion
> 5: Test name: ModelTest::testDiscreteSystemModel
> 5: equality assertion failed
> 5: - Expected: 0.98
> 5: - Actual  : 0.005

To me, this looks like a bug and I cannot say if it's working on ARM.
Therefore, I excluded ARM.
I also added more detailed explanations to the Spec file.

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #8 from Jerry James  ---
Issues
==
1. In multiple licensing scenarios, the package must contain a comment
   explaining the breakdown: see
  
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

   This can be accomplished in several ways; see the link for some ideas.

2. Upstream has not fixed the incorrect FSF address issue.  This is not a
   blocker for the review.

3. The license file is not installed if only the -doc subpackage is installed.

4. If you are concerned about the quality of the documentation, there are a few
   steps you could take to improve it:
   a. Replace "BuildRequires: doxygen" with "BuildRequires: doxygen-latex"
   b. Add "BuildRequires: ghostscript-core"
   c. Change the definition of INCLUDE_PATH in Doxyfile from the empty string
  to /usr/include/boost.  Unfortunately, then doxygen can't find the
  standard header files, so you have to add the default g++ include paths
  to INCLUDE_PATH as well.  You can get these by running

  cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null

  and looking at the lines of output between "#include <...> search starts
  here:" and "End of search list."  For example, you could do this just
  before running doxygen:

  includedirs=$(cpp -x c++ -v < /dev/null 2>&1 | sed -e '1,/#include
<\.\.\.> search/d' -e '/End of search list/,$d' | tr '\n' ' ')
  sed -i "s|INCLUDE_PATH[[:blank:]]*= |&/usr/include/boost $includedirs|"
Doxyfile

5. I wonder why one test failure on i386 warrants not running the tests for
   that platform, but one test failure on ARM warrants not building the package
   at all for that platform.  Can you explain?  (The explanation should
   probably go into a comment in the spec file.)


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



= 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)
 (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
 incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 31 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1233240
 -orocos-bfl/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories 

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann  ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl-0.8.99-4.20160503gitc1b18e3.fc23.src.rpm

koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13903004

After talking to upstream, I changed the license to 'LGPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ with
exceptions and GPLv2+' according to the license policy [1] and the results of
licensecheck.

I also updated to the latest commit.

[1] http://www.orocos.org/orocos/license

-- 
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
thofmann's scratch build of orocos-bfl-0.8.99-2.20150905git927874e.fc22.src.rpm
for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11495103

-- 
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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #6 from Till Hofmann  ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl-0.8.99-2.20150905git927874e.fc22.src.rpm

I've tried to fix all issues found by Sören:

(In reply to Sören Möller from comment #1)
> 
> I observed the following issues
> MUST
> [!]: In the deve-subpackage the headers are installed into a subfolder "bfl"
> instead of "orocos-bfl"
I do not think this is an issue as long there is no file conflict. I don't
think the include directory must have the same name as the package. In
contrast, changing the directory would possibly break existing code which
expects the files to be in /usr/include/bfl.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (see
> details below)
I've contacted upstream per email to clear up the license. I think it is
supposed to be LGPLv2, and they simply forgot to change all references.

> [!]: rpmlint complains about a lot of wrong FSF adresses (as noted in the
> review request)
This has been reported upstream, see above.

> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (as result of the license
> problem)
see above

> SHOULD
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. (see details
> below)
fixed

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
>  justified. (see details below)
Not relevant anymore, as all packages have been included upstream.
> EXTRA
> [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
>  is arched. (see details below)
Fixed by making the doc package noarch.

-- 
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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240



--- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann  ---
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10979538

-- 
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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Till Hofmann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|NotReady|



--- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann  ---
Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl.spec
SRPM URL:
https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/orocos-bfl-0.8.99-1.20150905git927874e.fc22.src.rpm

Upstream is active again and all our patches have been included. I updated to a
new git snapshot.

rpmlint will sometimes produce a warning for the Source URL. This is caused by
the upstream server, which sometimes needs more time for a response. The URL is
valid but sometimes timeouts occur.

-- 
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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady



--- Comment #2 from Till Hofmann hofm...@kbsg.rwth-aachen.de ---
Thank you for your comment! As it turns out, there is currently no active
upstream maintainer, so it is unclear whether it still makes sense to package
BFL. I hope this will come clear within the next days. Until then, I'll put the
review on NotReady. Once this problem has been solved, I'll fix the issues
you've found.

-- 
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 1233240] Review Request: orocos-bfl - A framework for inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233240

Sören Möller soerenmoeller2...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||soerenmoeller2...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Sören Möller soerenmoeller2...@gmail.com ---
I have tried to do a review of your package. But as I am not qualified/have the
permissions to do reviews yet, this is just a comment for your information (and
hopefully also helpful for the real reviewer).

I observed the following issues
MUST
[!]: In the deve-subpackage the headers are installed into a subfolder bfl
instead of orocos-bfl
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (see
details below)
[!]: rpmlint complains about a lot of wrong FSF adresses (as noted in the
review request)
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (as result of the license
problem)
SHOULD
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. (see details
below)
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified. (see details below)
EXTRA
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
 is arched. (see details below)

Note that there are a few points below, which I did not check as I was
unabile/unsure how to do it.

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.
I looked for files marked as executables as well as for binary files and find
nothing problematic. Althoug a few .eps images and source coude files have
executable permissions
[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.
LGPL2+ or GPL2+ (but see next item)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2)
 (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated, *No copyright*
 GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address), GPL (v2 or later) (with
 incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2.1 or later). 3 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/scren/review/1233240
 -orocos-bfl/licensecheck.txt
The COPYING file contains the LGPL2.1 and the Changelog writes that the license
in 2005 was changed from GPL to LGPL. Bur the README and many source files
still state the GPL. It is unclear which of those licenses the package is
under.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Only the main package install the license  file COPYING. The devel-subpackage
requires this package, but the doc- and debuginfo-subpackages do not require
the main packages, and can hence be installed without installing COPYING.
[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.
[?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
Using hardcoded name of /sbin/ldconfig in %pre and %post
[?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
I think the name follows the guidelines, but i wonder if liborcos-bft or
something like this wouldmake more sense, as it is a library
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
It includes an ExcludeArch tag, bug is promised in review request
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See above problems with the license
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms