[Bug 1476085] New: Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Bug ID: 1476085 Summary: Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids Product: Fedora Version: rawhide 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
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src... Description: Libsemigroups is a C++ library for semigroups and monoids; it is partly based on "Algorithms for computing finite semigroups", "Expository Slides", and Semigroupe 2.01 by Jean-Eric Pin.
The libsemigroups library is used in the Semigroups package for GAP. Fedora Account System Username: jjames
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Hello,
A couple of points regarding your package:
- gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.
- You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
- Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large number of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered "large" and should be in a separate -doc subpackage.
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]: 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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libsemigroups/review- libsemigroups/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. [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]: 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 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 libsemigroups-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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3358720 bytes in /usr/share → Make a doc subpackage [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-devel-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize, initial, inessential libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize, initial, inessential libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Robert-André.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
- gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
That page is out of date. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B for the latest guidelines.
- You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.
I can, but I don't like those macros. They seem to me to add verbosity for no gain.
- You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
Okay.
- Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large
could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large number of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered "large" and should be in a separate -doc subpackage.
Okay, I will fix this when I get home from work and upload a new package. Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael@cullen-online.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michael@cullen-online.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #3 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- Robert-André: if you want to take this to completion feel free, but since you didn't claim it I will as part of a review swap with bug 1476014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #5 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- Robert-André - Ah yeah I thought that might be the case
A few more comments:
* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise -> initialize
yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american english spellings :-)
* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create
looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option
I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.
Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list? What review request(s) have you submitted?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #5)
- libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise
-> initialize
yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american english spellings :-)
Actually, I'm a Yank. :-) I've gotten into the bad habit of ignoring rpmlint's complaints about misspelled words, because it is nearly always wrong. I'll rededicate myself to looking through the list of words for those rare cases where it actually finds a misspelled word.
- libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create
looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option
Actually, a peek at the build logs show that the -pthread compiler option is being passed. Apparently that does not imply linking with -lpthread, at least for a shared library. I've forced the issue by hacking up the Makefile to add -lpthread, which fixes the problem. Thanks for spotting that!
I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage
Done. I also added the standard lines in %build to eliminate hardcoded rpaths. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #8 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- I'm guessing you mean
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-2.fc27.src...
(just fixing the SRPM filename to refer to version 2 rather than a 404 error!)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- Ok, nearly there. A couple of things about that doc subpackage though.
One of the review checklist items is: * License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
it's possible to install the doc subpackage without getting the license file. Conceptually I can see why you might just want the docs (though it's unlikely!) so maybe the best thing to do is to include the license file in the docs package as well?
Also, I wonder if the doc package should be noarch?
Other than that it looks good. that pthread thing looks ugly and I can't help thinking there's something else going on there but it'll do.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.
Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list? What review request(s) have you submitted?
I haven't.
I have made a handful or two https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=VERIFI...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Good heavens. What was that remark you made about not thinking clearly? :-) Okay, I added the license to the -doc subpackage, and also made -doc be noarch. These are the actual URLs this time:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.src...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #12 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
I haven't.
I encourage you to do so. That is a great way to start making connections in the Fedora community.
I have made a handful or two https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist. cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=MODIFIE D&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=PO ST&email1=zebob.m%40gmail. com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailcc1=1&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=exact&list_id= 7650438
Okay, I will try to take a look at these in the coming week.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #13 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: =======
===== 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", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michael/fedora- review/1476085-libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(ripgrep) [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 libsemigroups-doc , libsemigroups-debuginfo [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-devel-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-doc-0.3.1-3.fc27.noarch.rpm libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.src.rpm libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libsemigroups.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s libsemigroups.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsemigroups-debuginfo-0.3.1-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsemigroups-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoids -> mono ids, mono-ids, mongoloids libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US submonoids -> submissions libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroup -> semi group, semi-group, semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Semigroup -> Semi group, Semi-group, Semipro libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US congruences -> congruence, congruence's, congruence s libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monoid -> mono id, mono-id, monoxide 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Requires -------- libsemigroups-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libsemigroups-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsemigroups(x86-64) libsemigroups.so.0()(64bit)
libsemigroups (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libsemigroups-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- libsemigroups-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsemigroups-debuginfo libsemigroups-debuginfo(x86-64)
libsemigroups-devel: libsemigroups-devel libsemigroups-devel(x86-64)
libsemigroups: libsemigroups libsemigroups(x86-64) libsemigroups.so.0()(64bit)
libsemigroups-doc: libsemigroups-doc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/james-d-mitchell/libsemigroups/releases/download/v0.3.1/l... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ebbdd098d3b9c08bfecf9de2e3bc1bb69f3fe68e0a56e9f25e51b026c93769c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebbdd098d3b9c08bfecf9de2e3bc1bb69f3fe68e0a56e9f25e51b026c93769c8
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1476085 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Not sure why rpmlint threw an error about python there but it's almost certainly a fedora-review bug or something.
All looks fine now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Michael Cullen michael@cullen-online.com --- APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0898127c09
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libsemigroups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-0898127c09
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-08-10 12:54:00
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com