[Bug 2271917] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-typeset - Automatic typesetting framework for common GAP objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Bug ID: 2271917 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-typeset - Automatic typesetting framework for common GAP objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-typeset/gap-pkg-typeset.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-typeset/gap-pkg-typeset-1.2.2-1.fc41... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package implements a framework for automatic typesetting of common GAP objects, for the purpose of embedding them nicely into research papers. Currently, an example implementation has been written specifically for LaTeX.
I am willing to swap reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gap-packages.github | |.io/typeset/ Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7222397 (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=2271917
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- It's been nearly a month. Do you think you will be able to start on this review soon?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- This review is stalled. In accordance with policy (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#stalled), I am noting here that a response from the reviewer is needed within the next week.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
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 --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2271917-gap-pkg-typeset/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gap, /usr/share/gap/pkg [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. [ ]: 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 %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 5595 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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.
===== 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: gap-pkg-typeset-1.2.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-typeset-doc-1.2.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-typeset-1.2.2-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp6inssrdg')] checks: 32, packages: 3
gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 2
gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/chooser.html ../../GAPDoc/styles/chooser.html gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/lefttoc.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/lefttoc.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/manual.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/manual.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/manual.js gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/nocolorprompt.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/nocolorprompt.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/ragged.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/ragged.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/rainbow.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/rainbow.js gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/times.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/times.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/toggless.css ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.css gap-pkg-typeset-doc.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/doc/toggless.js ../../GAPDoc/styles/toggless.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gap-packages/typeset/releases/download/v1.2.2/typeset-1.2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cbceb7c4ce567a5a1fb9e86c4a2f1890d52cb3a5f349a88e13af3e8bb7a708ef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cbceb7c4ce567a5a1fb9e86c4a2f1890d52cb3a5f349a88e13af3e8bb7a708ef
Requires -------- gap-pkg-typeset (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dot2tex gap-core graphviz
gap-pkg-typeset-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-pkg-digraphs-doc gap-pkg-typeset
Provides -------- gap-pkg-typeset: gap-pkg-typeset
gap-pkg-typeset-doc: gap-pkg-typeset-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2271917 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Python, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Sorry for the delay in getting to this. b) Does gap-core own /usr/share/gap and /usr/share/gap/pkg ? c) Not blocking, but rather than use %exclude perhaps replace %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/ with %dir %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/ %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/gap/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4)
a) Sorry for the delay in getting to this.
As it turns out, I've been super busy for the last week and half myself. No worries. It happens.
b) Does gap-core own /usr/share/gap and /usr/share/gap/pkg ?
/usr/share/gap/pkg is owned by gap-core. /usr/share/gap is owned by gap-libs, which is the bottom package of the gap package hierarchy. gap-core requires gap-libs. They are separate packages only so gap-libs can be noarch. That is, nothing but gap-core requires gap-libs directly. Think of gap-libs as the noarch part of gap-core. Everything else depends on gap-core.
c) Not blocking, but rather than use %exclude perhaps replace %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/ with %dir %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/ %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}/gap/
That works for directory ownership, but omits the files in %{gap_libdir}/pkg/%{pkgname}, all of which should be in the main package (e.g., /usr/share/gap/pkg/typeset/PackageInfo.g). I find the current form easier to work with.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Ping.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Benson!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-typeset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da (gap-pkg-typeset-1.2.2-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271917
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da
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=2271917
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-07-06 07:08:12
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-b9d5f305da (gap-pkg-typeset-1.2.2-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com