[Bug 1376869] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-lpres - Nilpotent quotients of L-presented groups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Bug ID: 1376869 Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-lpres - Nilpotent quotients of L-presented groups 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/gap-pkg-lpres/gap-pkg-lpres.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-lpres/gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.0-1.fc26.src... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The lpres package provides a first construction of finitely L-presented groups and a nilpotent quotient algorithm for L-presented groups. The features of this package include: - creating an L-presented group as a new gap object, - computing nilpotent quotients of L-presented groups and epimorphisms from the L-presented group onto its nilpotent quotients, - computing the abelian invariants of an L-presented group, - computing finite-index subgroups and if possible their L-presentation, - approximating the Schur multiplier of L-presented groups.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tflink@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tflink@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tim Flink tflink@redhat.com ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tflink/code/packages/gap-pkg- lpres/1376869-gap-pkg-lpres/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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). [-]: 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. [-]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: %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 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-lpres-0.3.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.0-1.fc25.src.rpm gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nilpotent -> Nil potent, Nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epimorphisms -> metamorphism gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abelian -> Belgian, Annabel, Anabel gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in variants, in-variants gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-lpres.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nilpotent -> Nil potent, Nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epimorphisms -> metamorphism gap-pkg-lpres.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abelian -> Belgian, Annabel, Anabel gap-pkg-lpres.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in variants, in-variants 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Nilpotent -> Nil potent, Nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US epimorphisms -> metamorphism gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US abelian -> Belgian, Annabel, Anabel gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in variants, in-variants gap-pkg-lpres.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- gap-pkg-lpres (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gap-core gap-pkg-fga gap-pkg-polycyclic
Provides -------- gap-pkg-lpres: gap-pkg-lpres
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/laurentbartholdi/lpres/releases/download/v0.3.0/lpres-0.3... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 702644a55ad85fd1e5e3ed74914779b0b0113d979536dca79640b37999376040 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 702644a55ad85fd1e5e3ed74914779b0b0113d979536dca79640b37999376040
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1376869 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Tim!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gap-pkg-lpres
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-97850b68cb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.1-1.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-2016-36fa8c86eb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-10-02 23:50:25
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- gap-pkg-lpres-0.3.1-1.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
-
Red Hat Bugzilla