[Bug 1784677] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-fr - Computations with functionally recursive groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
Bug ID: 1784677 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-fr - Computations with functionally recursive groups Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW 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 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-fr/gap-pkg-fr.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-fr/gap-pkg-fr-2.4.6-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package implements Functionally Recursive and Mealy automata in GAP. These objects can be manipulated as group elements, and various specific commands allow their manipulation as automorphisms of infinite rooted trees. Permutation quotients can also be created and manipulated as standard GAP groups or semigroups.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Ask upstream to use current FSF address
gap-pkg-fr.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-fr/COPYING
Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gap-pkg-fr/review-gap-pkg- fr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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). [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: gap-pkg-fr-2.4.6-1.fc32.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-fr-doc-2.4.6-1.fc32.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-fr-2.4.6-1.fc32.src.rpm gap-pkg-fr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatism gap-pkg-fr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automorphisms -> anthropomorphism gap-pkg-fr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups gap-pkg-fr.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-fr.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-fr/COPYING gap-pkg-fr-doc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-fr-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation gap-pkg-fr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatism gap-pkg-fr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automorphisms -> anthropomorphism gap-pkg-fr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US semigroups -> semi groups, semi-groups, regroups 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
- Ask upstream to use current FSF address
gap-pkg-fr.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/gap-pkg-fr/COPYING
Will do. Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gap-pkg-fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-2885cb5ac5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2885cb5ac5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-01-04 20:32:57
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-fr-2.4.6-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com