[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-01 20:28:50 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- Thanks again! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: GAPDoc Short Description: GAP documentation tool Owners: jjames Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from pcpa --- I think this is not much of an issue: $ du -sh /usr/share/gap/pkg/ 64M /usr/share/gap/pkg/ $ du -sh /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/ 3.8M/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/ $ du -sh /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/3k+1/ 200K/usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/3k+1/ as it would not be "exactly" a GAPDoc-doc subpackage, that does not sound very well :-), if having only the 3k+1 example dir, as the doc and example subdirs need to be in the main package. I do not see any remaining issues, and as I have already said, I did not even add GAPDoc when updating https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE because I thought it was already in Fedora, but I had downloaded and built it from your homepage several months ago. I consider the package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- The example directory is referred to in PackageInfo.g. Once can use the in-GAP documentation system to view a document entitled "GAPDoc Example", which points to the contents of that directory. So I think it has to be in the package. The 3k+1 directory is only referred to in makedocrel.g, which I *think* means that it is only needed if someone tries to regenerate the documentation. I'm not sure if that can (or is likely to be) done from inside GAP itself, however. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 --- Comment #4 from pcpa --- Ok. Good to know upstream is aware of the not so clear license of package (by default should be the same as gap itself), and in newer versions bundles a GPL copy. My only remaining clarification question is about if the doc and/or example subdirectories could be marked %doc? That would probably affect runtime because the help command should look at the doc subdir, but probably not the example subdir. The 3k+1 subdir may also be optional, as it is a "live example". The package should not require a -doc subpackage as the disk space of those is minimal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- According to http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Frank.Luebeck/GAPDoc/CHANGES.txt the license file is included starting in version 1.4. After this package is built for Fedora, I intend to update both it and GAP to their latest versions, but as I noted above, they are interdependent. So I need the version with no license file added to Fedora before I can upgrade GAP, which has to happen before I can build a new GAPDoc with the license file. Argh. New version with the line endings fixed: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/GAPDoc/GAPDoc.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/GAPDoc/GAPDoc-1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175
--- Comment #2 from pcpa ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on a
[Bug 849175] Review Request: GAPDoc - GAP documentation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849175 pcpa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from pcpa --- I noticed 3 files with ^M ending lines /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/ctop.xsl /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/mathml.xsl /usr/share/gap/pkg/GAPDoc-1.3/mathml/pmathml.xsl but not a big deal to remove those. I could not find any place where the license is clearly specified as GPLv2+; should be the case when being a (contributed and accepted) gap package, thus following gap license. The other licenses are listed in the files, and one could look at licensecheck output to see the files with different license, as specified in the spec: # The package is all GPLv2+ except for some of the mathml files BTW, I have been using this package for a very long time, it is a build requires of my work in progress sagemath package, and only now noticed that it was not yet part of fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
