[Bug 529198] Review Request: pynac - manipulation of symbolic expressions

Wed Jan 27 03:30:19 UTC 2010

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529198

--- Comment #5 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-01-26 22:30:17 EST ---
Here's my formal review, using
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines - there are a few
issues, easily fixed.

    *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

$ rpmlint SPECS/pynac.spec RPMS/x86_64/pynac-*
SRPMS/pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm 
pynac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This is as noted above.  It's a warning, not an error; documentation would be
really nice,  but isn't strictly required.

    * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.

OK.

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

OK

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

OK.

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .

OK.  GPLv2+.

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]

OK.  I did a spot-check of source code; in directory src/ginac
the files add.cpp and function.pl are clearly GPLv2+.

    * MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]

OK.  COPYING has GPLv2.

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK

    * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

OK.
$ wget http://www.sagemath.org/packages/standard/pynac-0.1.10.spkg
$ sha256sum pynac-0.1.10.spkg ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pynac-0.1.10.spkg 
547326b9af0130ed8891847deca58787b651f346cbf609b3b067176276a81b1b 
pynac-0.1.10.spkg
547326b9af0130ed8891847deca58787b651f346cbf609b3b067176276a81b1b 
/home/rpmbuilder/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pynac-0.1.10.spkg

    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK.  Works on x86_64 Fedora 12.

    * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

OK.  It builds on all architectures, as shown by this koji build:
 koji build --scratch dist-f12 ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm 

$ koji build --scratch dist-f12 ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm 
Uploading srpm: ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm
[====================================] 100% 00:00:16   2.10 MiB 128.73 KiB/sec
Created task: 1947029
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1947029
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): free
1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): free -> open
(ppc05.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free
  1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): free
  1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): free
  1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free
  1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free -> open
(ppc03.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): free -> open
(ppc09.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): free -> open
(x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open
(x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
  1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): open
(x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  4 open  1 done  0 failed
  1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): open
(x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  3 open  2 done  0 failed
  1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): open
(ppc09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  2 open  3 done  0 failed
  1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): open
(ppc03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  1 open  4 done  0 failed
1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): open
(ppc05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
  0 free  0 open  5 done  0 failed

    * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

OK.  Did a mock build, it built.

Also, see the koji builds.

    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

NA.  No locales.

    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]

OK.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
OK

    * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]

NA

    * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]

OK

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]

OK

    * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [15]

OK

    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
OK

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

ISSUE.
It uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{optflags}.

As required by:
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
it should use one style or the other.

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]

OK

    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

NA

    * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [19]

OK

    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]
OK

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]
NA

    * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]

ISSUE.  It has a .pc file, but no "Requires: pkgconfig".

    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [20]

OK

    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]

OK

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]

OK

    * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[24]

NA

    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]

OK

    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]

OK

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK

SHOULD Items:

    * SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[28]

NA

    * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[29]

None included.

    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30]

I did; it builds.

    * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [31]

I did; see the koji output above.

    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

I didn't do this.  It's a library, so I can't just a command line, and the docs
are lousy.  The primary user is SAGE, so I'll let the SAGE packagers check
that.

    * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32]

OK

    * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [23]

NA

    * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,
and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel
pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22]

OK

    * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself. [33]

OK

    * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34]

NA - it's a library.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.