[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Iztok Fister Jr. changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-14 15:42:21 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uARMSolver -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #9 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Hi Ankur, Thanks very much for your help. Best regards, Iztok -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX Please continue from the next step here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors Please drop me an e-mail if you have any issues with these steps too. (Infra outage in progress at the moment, so this page won't be available for the next few hours). Also, there's a change proposal to remove `make` from the default build root, so I'd add `make` to the BuildRequires now also just so you don't have to bother later. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5QUGA5RUB4B7GABUJOMOGCX4FOTRCSKC/#R2MD3FMWORC5Y7WHH5FQNU7QE5ICYMB7 Cheers! Ankur -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #7 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Thank you very much. All remaining issues have already been fixed. The final spec file is available here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/main/uARMSolver.spec SRPM is here: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/raw/main/uARMSolver-0.2-1.fc33.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1891961-uARMSolver/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Please ensure that the srpm is the latest one generated from the spec. - the necessary build flags aren't still used, so I think you'll need to use the improved Makefile. + /usr/bin/make -O -j8 V=1 VERBOSE=1 Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler g++ -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"Attribute.d" -MT"Attribute.o" -o "Attribute.o" "sources/Attribute.cpp" Finished building: sources/Attribute.cpp Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler g++ -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"Feature.d" -MT"Feature.o" -o "Feature.o" "sources/Feature.cpp" Finished building: sources/Feature.cpp ^ This is unfortunately a blocker. The other issues have been fixed, so this is the last one to solve. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- URLs didn't resolve correctly, let's try this: Spec: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/raw/main/uARMSolver.spec Srpm: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/raw/main/uARMSolver-0.1-1.fc32.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Great, thanks! I'll complete the review when I can find the time, hopefully before the end of next week :) -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Iztok Fister Jr. changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #3 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Dear reviewer (@ankursinha), Thank you very much for your comments/suggestions. Provided comments helped me to improve my SPEC file. I believe we can start another revision round. The new version of files is available on GitHub: SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/main/uARMSolver.spec SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/blob/main/uARMSolver-0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm?raw=true I am also attaching my answers to your comments. Issue 1: Please ensure that the srpm is generated from the spec that you've uploaded. Answer: Done Issue 2: Please move to the %files section after the %install section, and before the changelog. Answer: Done Issue 3: Please include the license file in the %files section so that they're included in the rpm. Please add this to the files section: %license LICENSE Answer: Done Issue 4: This is because the Makefile hard-codes CFLAGS (but doesn't then use these), so the Makefile needs some patching: CFLAGS = -O0 -g3 -Wall ... $(CC) -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"$(@:%.o=%.d)" -MT"$(@)" -o "$@" "$<" ^ Should use $CFLAGS Answer: Partly done. Issue 5: The changlog should say 0.1-1 (version-release), since for each release a new changelog needs to be added. Answer: Done Issue 6: Please use %make_build, which will include the -jX bit automatically Done Issue 7: Please add the -p flag in the install command to preserve time stamps. Answer: Done Issue 8: Please wrap the description so that the length of each line is 80 characters at most. (You can run `rpmlint -i` on the spec, srpm and the generated rpms to get verbose notes.) Answer: Done Issue 9: Could the description be improved too? It speaks about a framework but the package provides a binary tool? So it's not really clear: is the tool the framework? Answer: Description was improved. Issue 10: Please include some documentation: perhaps a man page or just a text file with some instructions for users? Answer: Docs were included. Issue 11: Please use tabs or spaces consistently, and do not mix them. Answer: The use of tabs and spaces is now consistent. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/1891961-uARMSolver/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
^
Please ensure that the srpm is generated from the spec that you've uploaded.
- Please move to the %files section after the %install section, and before the
changelog. The suggested order is:
%prep
%build
%install
%files
%changelog
- More comments below.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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.
^
Please include the license file in the %files section so that they're included
in the rpm. Please add this to the files section:
%license LICENSE
[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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/1891961-uARMSolver/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
^
License not currently included.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
Compiler flags are not used. Please see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
+ make
Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler
g++ -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"Archive.d"
-MT"Archive.o" -o "Archive.o" "sources/Archive.cpp"
Finished building: sources/Archive.cpp
This is because the Makefile hard-codes CFLAGS (but doesn't then use these), so
the Makefile needs some patching:
CFLAGS = -O0 -g3 -Wall
...
$(CC) -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP
-MF"$(@:%.o=%.d)" -MT"$(@)" -o "$@" "$<"
^
Should use $CFLAGS
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
^
The changlog should say 0.1-1 (version-release), since for each release a new
changelog needs to be added.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
(Also pointed out by rpmlint)
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
^
Some issues to be looked into.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- For fedora-review to be able to download the files and run checks, we need to use the "raw" links on GitHub etc. Let's hope me pasting them also works: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/main/uARMSolver.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver-rpm/raw/main/uARMSolver-0.1-1.fc32.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891961] Review Request: uARMSolver - Universal Association Rule Mining Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
