[Bug 1278081] New: Review Request: rw - Program that calculates rank-width and rank-decompositions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
Bug ID: 1278081 Summary: Review Request: rw - Program that calculates rank-width and rank-decompositions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/rw.spec SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/rw-0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: rw is a program that calculates rank-width and rank-decompositions. It is based on ideas from "Computing rank-width exactly" by Sang-il Oum, "Sopra una formula numerica" by Ernesto Pascal, "Generation of a Vector from the Lexicographical Index" by B.P. Buckles and M. Lybanon and "Fast additions on masked integers" by Michael D. Adams and David S. Wise. Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
--- Comment #1 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com --- This package is required by newer sagemath.
The standard sagemath spkg does not build the rw binary, but I changed the package to build it, pulling igraph-devel as build requires.
There is no "make check" target. I tested the example on upstream, and using the files under example_graphs (that are also installed as documentation) it appears to work as expected.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- can you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266804 ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1278081-rw/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rw-devel , rw-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-devel-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-devel-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1278081-rw/results/rw-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Checking: rw-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm rw-devel-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm rw-debuginfo-0.7-1.fc24.i686.rpm rw-0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm rw.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decompositions -> decomposition, decomposition's, decomposition s rw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompositions -> decomposition, decomposition's, decomposition s rw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US il -> IL, eel, i rw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US una -> tuna, ulna, Luna rw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US numerica -> numeric, numerical, numeric a rw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lybanon -> Lebanon rw.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rw rw-devel.i686: W: no-documentation rw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decompositions -> decomposition, decomposition's, decomposition s rw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompositions -> decomposition, decomposition's, decomposition s rw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US il -> IL, eel, i rw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US una -> tuna, ulna, Luna rw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US numerica -> numeric, numerical, numeric a rw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lybanon -> Lebanon 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
Requires -------- rw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): librw.so.0 rw(x86-32)
rw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
rw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libigraph.so.0 librw.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- rw-devel: rw-devel rw-devel(x86-32)
rw-debuginfo: rw-debuginfo rw-debuginfo(x86-32)
rw: librw.so.0 rw rw(x86-32)
Source checksums ---------------- http://pholia.tdi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de/~philipp/software/rw-0.7.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e049966e5c4f446b639d4b0c40d3ceddd57a79a8890c10dce90614d105d962e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e049966e5c4f446b639d4b0c40d3ceddd57a79a8890c10dce90614d105d962e7
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1278081 --plugins C/C++ -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Seem all ok. Approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
--- Comment #5 from Till Maas opensource@till.name --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278081
Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-03-18 12:23:25
--- Comment #6 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com --- Package is available. Closing bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla