https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
Bug ID: 1115881 Summary: Review Request: scheme48 - Scheme48 Scheme implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i@cicku.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/scheme48.spec SRPM URL: http://us-la.cicku.me/scheme48-1.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Scheme 48 is an implementation of the Scheme programming language as described in the Revised 5 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. It is based on a compiler and interpreter for a virtual Scheme machine. Scheme 48 tries to be faithful to the Revised 5 Scheme Report, providing neither more nor less in the initial user environment.
The name ‘Scheme 48’ commemorates our having written the original version in forty-eight hours, on August 6th and 7th, 1986. Fedora Account System Username: cicku Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7102659
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will ignore the warnings about -devel files being in a non-devel package, since this really is a -devel package.
Issues: 1. I see warnings in the build log about breaking strict aliasing rules when compiling c/r6rs/ieee_bytevect.c. This means that, to be safe, that file must be patched or compiled with -fno-strict-aliasing. Otherwise, the optimizer may emit code that does not behave as expected. (I have actually patched code that looks very much like this in other packages, and had the patches accepted upstream. Let me know if you'd like me to produce a patch for this issue.) 2. Consider splitting the documentation out into a -doc subpackage. 3. Multiple files are installed into %{_includedir}, including some that are not .h files. Consider moving those to a subdirectory, say /usr/include/scheme48. (This would also require patching the scheme48 compiler, of course.) 4. The license is identified as GPLv3+, but I do not think that is correct. Here is a breakdown of the various licenses in play, corresponding to the list in COPYING: - The main license is BSD (New BSD). - The bignum code is BSD (New BSD). - The code in c/free.c is MIT (Modern Style with sublicense). - The autoconf files, mkinstalldirs, INSTALL, and install-sh are not part of the binary distribution. We can ignore them for license purposes. - c/srfi-27.c carries no license information that I can find. This could be a problem, unless license information is available elsewhere. - Files in scheme/srfi: o Identified as part of scheme48, so BSD: packages.scm, srfi-2.scm, srfi-4.scm, srfi-5.scm, srfi-7.scm, srfi-13-check.scm, srfi-14-char-sets.scm, srfi-14-check.scm, srfi-17.scm, srfi-19-check.scm, srfi-39.scm, srfi-66.scm, srfi-74.scm, srfi-95.scm, srfi-95-check.scm, test-packages.scm o MIT (all Modern Style with sublicense): srfi-11.scm, srfi-14.scm, srfi-16.scm, srfi-19.scm, srfi-25.scm, srfi-27.scm, srfi-28.scm, srfi-40.scm, srfi-42.scm, srfi-45.scm, srfi-61.scm, srfi-63.scm, srfi-67.scm, srfi-71.scm, srfi-78.scm o Public Domain: srfi-26.scm, srfi-43.scm o srfi-1.scm: I don't know what to call this, maybe check with fedora-legal on the name to give it. o srfi-13.scm: MIT and BSD o srfi-14-base-char-sets.scm: generated file o srfi-37.scm: BSD o srfi-60.scm: MIT and MIT with advertising - scheme/sort code o Most are similar to srfi-1.scm; check with fedora-legal on the name. o Public Domain: sortp.scm, vbinsearch.scm o test-packages.scm: part of scheme48, so BSD o vhsort.scm, vqsort2.scm: "open source", may need fedora-legal input on these ones, too - Basis Technology Corp. code, covered by main scheme48 license (BSD) - tex2page files: I don't see them in the distribution.
Whew! So I think the license needs to be "BSD and MIT and MIT with advertising and Public Domain and <whatever the unknown licenses are called>", and a license for c/srfi-27.c needs to be identified. 5. The directory %{_libdir}/scheme48-%{version} is owned by this package, but the directory %{_libdir}/scheme48 is not. Are both really needed? Can they be consolidated? 6. See the first item in the SHOULD section. Maybe that Requires should be filtered? 7. Can a %check section be added? I see a check target in Makefile.in. 8. Can the noarch parts of the package be split out into a noarch subpackage? See the note under "EXTRA items" below. 9. There are various warnings by rpmlint that should be addressed, namely: o The package name is repeated in the summary. o The word "described" is hyphenated in the description. It's probably better not to do that, and let consuming packages figure out how to hyphenate words if the available horizontal space is insufficient. o Check the missing-call-to-setgroups warning on posix.so. Is that a legitimate warning? o Some files are not UTF-8. o Check the wrong-script-interpreter and non-executable-script warnings.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2519040 bytes in 27 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 128 files have unknown license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/scheme48/bin, /usr/lib64/scheme48 [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 %doc. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [!]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. Note: Incorrect Requires : /usr/lib64/scheme48/bin/scheme-srfi-7 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileDeps [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5027840 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: scheme48-1.9.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm scheme48-1.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm scheme48.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Scheme48 scheme48.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d scheme48.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scribed -> scribes, scribe, ascribed scheme48.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/posix.so scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/scheme48/bin/scheme48-config scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/deriving.txt scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48.h scheme48.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/include/scheme48.exp .. scheme48.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/include/scheme48.exp 0644L .. scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48arch.h scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/README scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/COPYING scheme48.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/include/scheme48-external.exp .. scheme48.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/include/scheme48-external.exp 0644L .. scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48write-barrier.h scheme48.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scheme48-config scheme48.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Scheme48 scheme48.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d scheme48.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scribed -> scribes, scribe, ascribed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 14 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint scheme48 scheme48.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Scheme48 scheme48.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d scheme48.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scribed -> scribes, scribe, ascribed scheme48.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/posix.so scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/scheme48/bin/scheme48-config scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/deriving.txt scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48.h scheme48.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/include/scheme48.exp .. scheme48.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/include/scheme48.exp 0644L .. scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48arch.h scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/README scheme48.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/scheme48/COPYING scheme48.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/include/scheme48-external.exp .. scheme48.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/include/scheme48-external.exp 0644L .. scheme48.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/scheme48write-barrier.h scheme48.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scheme48-config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- scheme48 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/lib64/scheme48/bin/scheme-srfi-7 libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnsl.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- scheme48: scheme48 scheme48(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- scheme48: /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/ffi-test.so scheme48: /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/posix.so scheme48: /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/r6rs.so scheme48: /usr/lib64/scheme48-1.9.2/srfi-27.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://s48.org/1.9.2/scheme48-1.9.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c4921a90e95daee067cd2e9cc0ffe09e118f4da01c0c0198e577c4f47759df4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c4921a90e95daee067cd2e9cc0ffe09e118f4da01c0c0198e577c4f47759df4
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1115881 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Christopher, do you have any intention of continuing with this review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge@redhat.com Whiteboard|NotReady |NotReady, StalledSubmitter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115881
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed| |2016-03-09 17:46:18
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla