https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Bug ID: 1722295 Summary: Review Request: R-usethis - Automate Package and Project Setup Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.analyst@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-usethis.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-usethis-1.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: Automate package and project setup tasks that are otherwise performed manually. This includes setting up unit testing, test coverage, continuous integration, Git, GitHub, licenses, Rcpp, RStudio projects, and more.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1722293
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722293 [Bug 1722293] Review Request: R-pkgdown - Make Static HTML Documentation for a Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1722393
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722393 [Bug 1722393] Review Request: R-devtools - Tools to Make Developing R Packages Easier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Creative Commons Attribution Public License (v4.0)", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License". 224 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/R-usethis/review-R-usethis/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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 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. [-]: 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 binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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 1.5.0, packaged version is 1.5.0
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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: R-usethis-1.5.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm R-usethis-1.5.0-1.fc31.src.rpm R-usethis.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/R/library/usethis/templates/code.c R-usethis.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/R/library/usethis/templates/code.cpp R-usethis.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/R/library/usethis/templates/readme-rmd-pre-commit.sh 644 /bin/bash 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-usethis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-745fb0974a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-745fb0974a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- R-usethis-1.5.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-745fb0974a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295 Bug 1722295 depends on bug 1722293, which changed state.
Bug 1722293 Summary: Review Request: R-pkgdown - Make Static HTML Documentation for a Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722293
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722295
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-07-03 01:16:28
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- R-usethis-1.5.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com