[Bug 1953741] New: Review Request: R-pbapply - Adding Progress Bar to '*apply' Functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Bug ID: 1953741 Summary: Review Request: R-pbapply - Adding Progress Bar to '*apply' Functions 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-pbapply/main/R-pbapply.spe... SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pbapply/raw/main/R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc33.s...
Description: A lightweight package that adds progress bar to vectorized R functions ('*apply'). The implementation can easily be added to functions where showing the progress is useful (e.g. bootstrap). The type and style of the progress bar (with percentages or remaining time) can be set through options. Supports several parallel processing backends.
Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Looks very good. A few nitpicks---not sure if this should be noarch?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION ^ Not sure what this is referring to.
- The package has the standard %install section. Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/R/ ^ it does, false positive
- not a blocker: maybe this is a more user friendly URL to use for the package? https://peter.solymos.org/pbapply/
- should this package be noarch? I can't find any info to suggest either way, but you're also disabling debuginfo which suggests it could be?
- cosmetic: you can use the %autosetup macro (guidelines could be updated)
- cosmetic: you can use Version: %{ver}.%{packagerel}. It just saves you from changing two lines manually.
===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1953741-R-pbapply/licensecheck.txt [-]: %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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ^ Debuginfo is disabled---please check this (related to arch of package too).
[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]: 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil} [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.
R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.4.3, packaged version is 1.4.3
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc35.src.rpm R-pbapply.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored R-pbapply.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib R-pbapply.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- R-pbapply.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vectorized -> factorized, vectored R-pbapply.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/pbapply_1.4-3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fe6287535be766b5a688810e2cc1ca4e668ac6b42b6e832473fe5701133eb21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fe6287535be766b5a688810e2cc1ca4e668ac6b42b6e832473fe5701133eb21
Requires -------- R-pbapply (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R(ABI) R(parallel) R-core
Provides -------- R-pbapply: R(pbapply) R-pbapply R-pbapply(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1953741 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: R, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
--- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Hi Ankur,
Thank you very much for your quick response and great comments. As a matter of fact, I switched to the noarch. It builds smoother. Debuginfo does not need to be disabled now.
I am attaching scratch build for f34 (some dependencies are broken in f35 :( ):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66783023
New files are online:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pbapply/main/R-pbapply.spe... SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pbapply/raw/main/R-pbapply-1.4.3-1.fc33.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-pbapply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3770833f12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-e377318157 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e377318157 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e377318157
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=1953741
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5
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=1953741
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3770833f12
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=1953741
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-05-08 01:10:10
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-e377318157 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-3770833f12 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953741
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a8e741e2d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com