[Bug 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29- ||2.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-07-03 14:48:33 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 --- Comment #7 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- Yeah, I've pointed that out to quite a few people. Thanks for the review. I owe you. -- 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gap-pkg-autodoc Short Description: Generate documentation from GAP source code Upstream URL: http://wwwb.math.rwth-aachen.de/~gutsche/gap_packages/AutoDoc/ 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984
--- Comment #1 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us ---
I do have a question regarding use of {?_isa} in the Requires, mainly for my
own understanding going forward.
I reviewed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requires_2
It mentions: As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required, don't add it
just for fun.
It doesn't directly apply that to arch, but I felt the inference carried over
to the other items.
In my own package which was noarch, I added several Requires, but didn't
specify arch; since the 386 version or the x86 version would work fine.
Since this package is also noarch, why would you specify arch? Is there a
technical reason or just preference?
None of the items listed below are blockers. If you wish to incorporate some
of the suggestions, do so and post the new Spec so I can approve. If not, just
advise and I then approve the current Spec.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
SHOULD:
- RPMLINT is complaining about zero length files:
E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutomaticDocumentation.bbl
E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutoDoc.bbl
These should be removed if not needed for something.
You can do this in %install section:
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';'
- The spell checker is complaining about addon,
and in this case it is correct. It should be
add-on; however, if you change it, it probably will
report that as a misspelling. sigh
- gap-pkg-autodoc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483199
and from what I can gather this shouldn't have been generated because
you have noarch specified. Thoughts?
- Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license.
It is suggested you advise upstream.
- %check is present and all tests pass.
= MUST items =
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: Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/gbcox/bugzilla_fedora_review/1233984
-gap-pkg-autodoc/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 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 is not
[Bug 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) By the way, when you take a review, you should mark the bug status as Assigned. See step 3 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer. I thought it did that automatically. I took the bug, and changed the fedora-review flag to '?'. Anyway, 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 --- Comment #4 from Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us --- BTW, thanks for pointing that out. I always wondered why so many bugs always showed status of NEW... I'm going to file a bug request on this. They should be able to automatically change the status to ASSIGNED when someone TAKES the bug report. That's the way I thought it worked, and as my bug list shows, quite a few other folks are thinking the same thing. -- 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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #1)
I do have a question regarding use of {?_isa} in the Requires, mainly for my
own understanding going forward.
Short story: I copied another, arch-specific, spec file I had just worked on to
start, and just forgot to remove the %{?_isa} tags. You are correct: this is a
noarch package and %{?_isa} is not useful. Removed.
- RPMLINT is complaining about zero length files:
E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutomaticDocumentation.bbl
E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutoDoc.bbl
These should be removed if not needed for something.
You can do this in %install section:
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -size 0 -exec rm -f {} ';'
Done.
- The spell checker is complaining about addon,
and in this case it is correct. It should be
add-on; however, if you change it, it probably will
report that as a misspelling. sigh
Fixed.
- gap-pkg-autodoc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483199
and from what I can gather this shouldn't have been generated because
you have noarch specified. Thoughts?
This is an artifact of how gap itself is packaged, I suspect. Anyway, there's
nothing I can do about it in this package. The files need to go where they go.
- Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license.
It is suggested you advise upstream.
This is common practice in the GAP world. GAP package authors tend to not put
any notices in their source files, but to note the license for the entire
project in the documentation. (In this case, doc/AutoDoc.tex and
doc/AutomaticDocumentation.tex both identify the license.)
- %check is present and all tests pass.
While many GAP packages come with test code, this one, sadly, does not. I'm
not sure what to do about that.
By the way, when you take a review, you should mark the bug status as Assigned.
See step 3 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer.
New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-autodoc/gap-pkg-autodoc.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-autodoc/gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.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 1233984] Review Request: gap-pkg-autodoc - Generate documentation from GAP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 Gerald Cox gb...@bzb.us changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gb...@bzb.us Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|gb...@bzb.us 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
