[Bug 1438881] New: Review Request: guile22 - A GNU implementation of Scheme for application extensibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Bug ID: 1438881 Summary: Review Request: guile22 - A GNU implementation of Scheme for application extensibility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jdulaney@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22.spec SRPM URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc26.src.rpm Description: GUILE (GNU's Ubiquitous Intelligent Language for Extension) is a library implementation of the Scheme programming language, written in C. GUILE provides a machine-independent execution platform that can be linked in as a library during the building of extensible programs. Fedora Account System Username: jdulaney
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jsynacek@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jdulaney@fedoraproject.org Flags| |needinfo?(jdulaney@fedorapr | |oject.org)
--- Comment #1 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- Thanks for preparing the package. My review follows.
Issues: ======= - I think it would be better for the names of the executables in /usr/bin to not include dash, similarly to the compat-guile18 and python3 packages - The package should probably not include the /usr/bin/guile2{,-tools} symlinks - Missing Provides: bundled(gnulib) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_... - Package contains a libtool archive /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/extensions/guile-readline.la See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - Package has obsolete/wrong scriptlets: %triggerin -- guile and %postrans should be removed %triggerin -- slib needs to be updated, or removed if slib doesn't work with guile2.2 yet - Macro %define mver should be replaced with %global mver
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/guile/site(compat- guile18, guile), /usr/lib64/guile(guile), /usr/include/guile(guile- devel), /usr/share/guile(compat-guile18, guile) This looks ok. [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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. [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. [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. [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]: 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. [x]: 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. [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Some needs to be removed or updated. [-]: 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. Note: some tests are disabled for being unreliable. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define mver 2.2 [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]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm guile22-devel-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm guile22-debuginfo-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.src.rpm guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go guile22.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go guile22.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/scripts/scan-api.go
[Large number of warnings and errors for other .go files]...
guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2-tools guile-tools guile22.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/guile/2.2/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2 guile guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2-tools guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2 guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-tools-2.2 guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guild-2.2 guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans mv guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-snarf-2.2 guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-config-2.2 guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h guile22.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 603 errors, 322 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: guile22-debuginfo-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Python detected LC_CTYPE=C: LC_ALL & LANG coerced to C.UTF-8 (set another locale or PYTHONCOERCECLOCALE=0 to disable this locale coercion behaviour). sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go guile22.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go guile22.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go guile22.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/ccache/ice-9/and-let-star.go
[Large number of warnings and errors for other .go files]...
guile22.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/lib64/libguile-2.2.so.1.0.0 guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2 guile guile22.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/guile2-tools guile-tools guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id guile22.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id guile22.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/guile/2.2/language/elisp/compile-tree-il.scm guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guild-2.2 guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-tools-2.2 guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2 guile22.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile2-tools guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm guile22.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%posttrans mv guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible guile22-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-config-2.2 guile22-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary guile-snarf-2.2 guile22-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/guile22-2.2.0-2.fc27.x86_64/libguile/elf.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 603 errors, 620 warnings.
Requires -------- guile22 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /sbin/ldconfig coreutils ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgc.so.1()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) libguile-2.2.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.7()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libunistring.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
guile22-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config gc-devel gmp-devel guile22(x86-64) libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig
guile22-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- guile22: guile22 guile22(x86-64) libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) libguile-2.2.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) libtool(/usr/lib64/guile/2.2/extensions/guile-readline.la)
guile22-devel: guile22-devel guile22-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(guile-2.2)
guile22-debuginfo: guile22-debuginfo guile22-debuginfo(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: guile-2.2.0/configure.ac:105, guile-2.2.0/configure.ac:1693
Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/guile/guile-2.2.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c18198ff6e8b05c620dbdd49b816a2e63a2688af843b5cf8e965041f1adcb515 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c18198ff6e8b05c620dbdd49b816a2e63a2688af843b5cf8e965041f1adcb515
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com --- As I understand this review, the new guile22 is supposed to be installed alongside the existing guile 2.0.x package. I think that there are some potential problems with the spec.
1) You seem to be removing the old info pages in the %preun script. I don't think that's going to work on updates, plus if need them for the old version, the info pages are not there on the system anymore.
2) You still ship the compat symlinks to guile and guile-tools, which will conflict with 2.0.x, will they not?
I created a very similar package some time ago [1], you can get the info pages install side by side and work after installation with some sed magic.
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jsynacek/gnu-guile-2.1.x/build/48600...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
John Dulaney jdulaney@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jdulaney@fedorapr | |oject.org) |
--- Comment #3 from John Dulaney jdulaney@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22.spec SRPM URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22-2.2.0-4.fc26.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jdulaney@fedorapr | |oject.org)
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- Thanks for the update. Except some issues with the info files I think all good.
- %preun is needed to uninstall the info files correctly, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Texinfo - the install-info commands should (un)install the info files in the package (guile22 and r5rs22) - the info files need to be modified, see Jan's comment #2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
John Dulaney jdulaney@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jdulaney@fedorapr | |oject.org) |
--- Comment #5 from John Dulaney jdulaney@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22.spec SRPM URL: https://jdulaney.fedorapeople.org/guile22-2.2.0-5.fc27.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- Looks good. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
John Dulaney jdulaney@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mlichvar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/guile22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- Just a note that unless this package contains version 22 of guile, the naming guidelines indicate that "guile2.2" is the correct name:
" [...] All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed by either:
* The package version, which SHOULD include the periods present in the original version. [...] "
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Multiple_packages_with_the_s...
The idea is to avoid the confusion between version 2.2 and version 22.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #9 from Miroslav Lichvar mlichvar@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #8)
Just a note that unless this package contains version 22 of guile, the naming guidelines indicate that "guile2.2" is the correct name:
" [...] All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed by either:
- The package version, which SHOULD include the periods present in the
original version. [...]
The idea is to avoid the confusion between version 2.2 and version 22.
Good point.
FWIW, I prefer guile22 to keep the naming consistent with compat-guile18. There are other packages not using dots and I think it's very unlikely we would have guile-2.2 and guile-22 packaged in Fedora at the same time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5845191ead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ff7cfe0522
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-ff7cfe0522
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.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-2017-5845191ead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-04-27 16:53:07
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #15 from Jan Synacek jsynacek@redhat.com --- I did an additional round of testing and it seems to be working fine. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438881
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- guile22-2.2.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com