https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
Bug ID: 1300070 Summary: Review Request: octave-doctest - Documentation tests for Octave Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cbm@m.fsf.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: The Octave-forge Doctest package finds specially-formatted blocks of example code within documentation files. It then executes the code and confirms the output is correct. This can be useful as part of a testing framework or simply to ensure that documentation stays up-to-date during software development.
Fedora Account System Username: cbm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #1 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Note: tarball exists on github but is not yet on sourceforge (which is the official upstream tarball). It should be there soon and I'll post when it is.
Note: I didn't use %doc, even where some other octave-* packages did. My reasoning re: "doc-cache" file:
To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not > present.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #2 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- $ koji build --scratch rawhide octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12612204
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12612204
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12612606
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12612612
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12614261
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12617065
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12617211
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12617577
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12617888
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12623460
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #12 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Sorry for all the noise and for using koji to debug an upstream problem (I didn't have another arm box). Next time I will do the koji scratch *before* submitting this request!
The sourceforge tarball is now live. So its now ready for review...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #13 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest-0.4.1-2.fc23.src.rpm Description: The Octave-forge Doctest package finds specially-formatted blocks of example code within documentation files. It then executes the code and confirms the output is correct. This can be useful as part of a testing framework or simply to ensure that documentation stays up-to-date during software development.
Fedora Account System Username: cbm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #14 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Successful Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12624077
Note: I didn't use %doc, even where some other octave-* packages did. My reasoning re: "doc-cache" file:
To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not > present.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anto.trande@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Unfortunately, does not compile on Rawhide:
make: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/doctest-0.4.1/src' /usr/bin/mkoctfile-4.0.0 --verbose doctest_evalc.cc g++ -c -fPIC -I/usr/include/octave-4.0.0/octave/.. -I/usr/include/octave-4.0.0/octave -pthread -fopenmp -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic doctest_evalc.cc -o doctest_evalc.o g++ -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o doctest_evalc.oct doctest_evalc.o -L/usr/lib64/octave/4.0.0 -L/usr/lib64 -loctinterp -loctave -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/6.0.0/crtbeginS.o: unrecognized relocation (0x2a) in section `.text' /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Bad value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #16 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Thanks! That's strange b/c it build earlier... I'll investigate.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #17 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- cbm's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12760452
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #18 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Ok Koji rawhide is fine, but I can reproduce in a local virtual machine.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #19 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Hmmm, updating my "binutils" from 2.25.1-9 to 2.26-4 on my VM fixed this for me. Is it possible your rawhide is also not up-to-date?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- (In reply to Colin Macdonald from comment #19)
Hmmm, updating my "binutils" from 2.25.1-9 to 2.26-4 on my VM fixed this for me. Is it possible your rawhide is also not up-to-date?
'binutils' is not among BuildRequires packages. List all packages necessary for building.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #21 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Thanks. I think the BR on octave-devel will cover that. But I can certainly add it along with any other revisions from review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #22 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- sagitter's scratch build of octave-doctest-0.4.1-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12790193
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
- '%global __provides_exclude_from ^%{octpkglibdir}/.*\.oct$' is missing
- Validation of metainfo.xml file is not need. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: 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. [-]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
$ rpmlint octave-doctest octave-doctest-debuginfo octave-doctest.x86_64: W: no-documentation octave-doctest.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #24 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Thank you for the review!
1. I hope I have addressed your comments, except for the rpmlint warnings:
octave-doctest.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Noted above: all doc files are needed for package to function correctly thus not marked %doc.
octave-doctest.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv
I think this is from the .macro file
2. I don't really understand the __exclude_exclude: in particular, is it correct to place it at the top of the file?
3. Updated files:
Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest-0.4.1-3.fc23.src.rpm
4. A diff of my changes: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest-0.4.1-2-3.diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #25 from Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org --- Sorry, meant "__provides_exclude_". I just copy-pasted what you said to the top of the file. I can't find other octave-pkgs that do this: maybe they should!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #26 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- (In reply to Colin Macdonald from comment #24)
Thank you for the review!
- I hope I have addressed your comments, except for the rpmlint warnings:
octave-doctest.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Noted above: all doc files are needed for package to function correctly thus not marked %doc.
octave-doctest.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv
I think this is from the .macro file
- I don't really understand the __exclude_exclude: in particular, is it
correct to place it at the top of the file?
It's provided for by guidelines for Octave packages:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave#Arch_specific_Octave_spec_tem...
- Updated files:
Spec URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest.spec SRPM URL: https://cbm.fedorapeople.org/octave-doctest-0.4.1-3.fc23.src.rpm
Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
--- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/octave-doctest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070
Colin Macdonald cbm@m.fsf.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-02-05 13:34:20
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla