[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-01-30 13:02:04



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-laguna-3.8.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-laguna-3.8.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-d3d5146a89

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-laguna-3.8.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d3d5146a89

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-laguna. You may commit to the branch
"f27" in about 10 minutes.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Hmmm, that's odd. I thought I had done so.  I've got this in my copy of the
> spec file:
> 
> # Fix end of line encodings
> sed -i 's/\r//' doc/{manual.bib,theory.xml}
> 
> Did I submit the wrong version of the spec file?  Well, I will investigate
> and make sure this is fixed before importing.

Okay, I see the problem.  Those files do not have newline-return pairs; they
have returns only, like with old Apple files.  So the correct invocation is
this:

sed -i 's/\r/\n/g' doc/{manual.bib,theory.xml}

I will make that correction.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thank you again.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-laguna/COPYING
> 
> You should notify upstream about this, they are using an obsolete FSF
> address.

Okay, I will do so.  That wrong address is pervasive throughout the GAP
universe, I'm afraid.  I'll do what I can to get it corrected.

> gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
> /usr/lib/gap/pkg/laguna/doc/manual.bib
> gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
> /usr/lib/gap/pkg/laguna/doc/theory.xml
> 
> You should fix the line encodings for these files.

Hmmm, that's odd. I thought I had done so.  I've got this in my copy of the
spec file:

# Fix end of line encodings
sed -i 's/\r//' doc/{manual.bib,theory.xml}

Did I submit the wrong version of the spec file?  Well, I will investigate and
make sure this is fixed before importing.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534336] Review Request: gap-pkg-laguna - Lie AlGebras and UNits of group Algebras

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534336

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Just a couble of trivial rpmlint errors:

gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-laguna/COPYING

You should notify upstream about this, they are using an obsolete FSF address.

gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/laguna/doc/manual.bib
gap-pkg-laguna.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/laguna/doc/theory.xml

You should fix the line encodings for these files.


Package otherwise approved.



Package Review
==

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



= 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". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gap-pkg-laguna
 /review-gap-pkg-laguna/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into