[Bug 1702801] New: Review Request: black-hole-solver - Solver for the solitaire games Golf, Black Hole, and All in a Row
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
Bug ID: 1702801 Summary: Review Request: black-hole-solver - Solver for the solitaire games Golf, Black Hole, and All in a Row Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shlomif@shlomifish.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://www.shlomifish.org/Files/files/code/black-hole-solver.spec SRPM URL: https://www.shlomifish.org/Files/files/arcs/black-hole-solver-0.20.0-1.fc31.... Description: See https://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/projects/black-hole-solitaire-solver/ . It improves the Golf solver in recent kpatience (see https://phabricator.kde.org/D18566 ). Fedora Account System Username: shlomif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - the license file must be installed with %license, not %doc:
%license COPYING
- missing isa:
Requires: %{libname}%{?_isa} = %version-%release
- Be more specific here:
%{_mandir}/*/*
- You bundle xxHash-wrapper/xxHash-0.6.5 under BSD license. Include it in License if it is in the resulting binary and add a comment explaining the license breakdown.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/black-hole- solver/review-black-hole-solver/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/black-hole-solver [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 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libblack-hole-solver1 , libblack-hole-solver-devel [?]: 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. [-]: 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 basen black-hole- solver, %define libname_orig lib%{basen}, %define major 1, %define libname lib%{basen}%{major}, %define develname lib%{basen}-devel [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== 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: black-hole-solver-0.20.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libblack-hole-solver1-0.20.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm libblack-hole-solver-devel-0.20.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm black-hole-solver-debuginfo-0.20.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm black-hole-solver-debugsource-0.20.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm black-hole-solver-0.20.0-1.fc31.src.rpm libblack-hole-solver1.x86_64: W: no-documentation libblack-hole-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on libblack-hole-solver/libblack-hole-solver-libs/liblibblack-hole-solver libblack-hole-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
--- Comment #2 from Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org --- Thanks! The .spec and .src.rpm have been updated at the same URLs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Could xxHash be unbundlded to depend on a system one?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
--- Comment #4 from Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
- Could xxHash be unbundlded to depend on a system one?
done in the latest files in the same URLs. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/black-hole-solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Fixed In Version| |black-hole-solver-1.2.1-1.f | |c31 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-08-03 00:25:24
--- Comment #7 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Please close your Review Requests when they are complete.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702801
Christensen gv4uqado@chapedia.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gv4uqado@chapedia.net
--- Comment #8 from Christensen gv4uqado@chapedia.net --- Many peoples like to playing golf but they don,t know how big is a golf ball. That's why today am here to tell you about it. If you are interested to know how big is a golf ball. then just click https://rangefindereviews.com/how-big-is-a-golf-ball/ and read the all details.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com