https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Bug ID: 2179567 Summary: Review Request: R-gpx - Process GPX files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/R-gpx.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.r... Description: Process open standard GPX files into data.frames for further use and analysis in R. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/R-gpx/2179567-R-gpx/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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core.
===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.1.0, packaged version is 1.1.0
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzgrzu8m8')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.0 s ===========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s
Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/gpx_1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b1582856c477fed3adfd18510209b79bfbb70e99df5b4e2848a6c6bc6c1d2b75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1582856c477fed3adfd18510209b79bfbb70e99df5b4e2848a6c6bc6c1d2b75
Requires -------- R-gpx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R(ABI) R(lubridate) R(rvest) R(xml2) R-core
Provides -------- R-gpx: R(gpx) R-gpx
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2179567 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: R, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ruby, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) In the description maybe helpful to add a link to the GitHub repository: https://github.com/bmewing/gpx b) Ask upstream to add MIT license file to https://github.com/bmewing/gpx c) The documentation needs https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/katex@0.15.3/dist/katex.min.js which will not be available when offline, though other R packages have this. d) Could the spec file more closely follow the format at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/R/ in particular i) perhaps delete the R.css file ii) perhaps use %global rlibdir e) Perhaps use a single description section rather than %global _description as the description is only used once
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks, Benson!
Revision is Online:
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/R-gpx.spec SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.r...
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99081050
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://cran.r-project.org/ | |web/packages/gpx/index.html
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5703515 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Still get a warning
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
not sure why.
The license file just has copyright information, but not the text of the MIT license. Made a pull request with that: https://github.com/bmewing/gpx/pull/11
Fedora-review gives the following errors:
R-gpx.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-gpx.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64
Should some exceptions be made for R packages? In this case: usr/lib64/R/library/gpx/R/gpx.rdb usr/lib64/R/library/gpx/R/gpx.rdx
rdx and rdb files are in other R packages.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.ucar86@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- One of the R maintainers here. @Benson: I can take it from here if you like.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4)
Still get a warning
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION
not sure why.
We see this in all R packages, it's a false positive. The file list in the spec conforms to the packaging guidelines.
The license file just has copyright information, but not the text of the MIT license. Made a pull request with that: https://github.com/bmewing/gpx/pull/11
The R language provides all the texts, and packages must NOT include new copies. This is CRAN policy and we replicate this policy in Fedora. So this is fine, and you should close that PR, because the file you are trying to modify is ok. See this for more details: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#Licensing
Fedora-review gives the following errors:
R-gpx.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-gpx.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64
Should some exceptions be made for R packages? In this case: usr/lib64/R/library/gpx/R/gpx.rdb usr/lib64/R/library/gpx/R/gpx.rdx
rdx and rdb files are in other R packages.
The issue here is this line:
%global rlibdir %{_libdir}/R/library
It should be _datadir instead of _libdir for a noarch package.
More comments:
- The URL and Source0 fields do not conform to the packaging guidelines. Please, fix this. See the sample spec: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/R/#_spec_templates... - The Requires: R-core is not needed, please remove it (see again the sample spec; this will give a warning in the package review tool, but that's fine, it's a false positive). - The Summary should be the description on CRAN, i.e.: "Process GPX Files into R Data Structures". - The Description should be just the long description on CRAN, i.e.: "Process open standard GPX files into data.frames for further use and analysis in R."
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #6 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks for both reviews.
I have already incorporated the comments raised by the second reviewer.
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/R-gpx.spec
SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc37.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(i.ucar86@gmail.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1954918 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1954918&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5703515 to 5733206
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5733206 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(i.ucar86@gmail.co | |m) |
--- Comment #9 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- All ok now, thank you. Package can be approved if Benson has no other observation.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Iñaki, many thanks for your helpful comments. Will see if can improve Fedora-review for these cases. Probably katex.min.js should be packaged separately? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/ https://www.npmjs.com/package/katex This affects many R packages, so need not block this review.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-gpx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-de153666c5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-de153666c5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bbe33f009c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-bbe33f009c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bbe33f009c
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-de153666c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-de153666c5
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-04-10 00:36:57
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bbe33f009c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bb557c3ccf has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-de153666c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com