[Bug 693798] Review Request: octave-image - Image processing for Octave
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 8 11:35:28 UTC 2011
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=693798
José Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |jamatos at fc.up.pt
--- Comment #1 from José Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt> 2011-04-08 07:35:27 EDT ---
I started the evaluation of this packages and my comments are at the end.
As soon as this is fixed we can pass to the other package it is probably easier
to fix this first.
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint octave-image-debuginfo-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
octave-image-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/image-1.0.13/src/edtfunc.c
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
octave-image.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-image.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM upstream package : b2948a6d90cbd55f7b0a12fdf5da3b23
[x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : 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 is included in %doc.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory
names.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict.
[-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[-] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] : 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.
[x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[!] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
[x] : SHOULD - Package functions as described.
[x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged.
[x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[-] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables.
[-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[x] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
[x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
Issues:
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint octave-image-debuginfo-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
octave-image-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/image-1.0.13/src/edtfunc.c
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.i686.rpm
================================================================================
octave-image.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge
octave-image.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: E: zero-length
/usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload
octave-image.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint octave-image-1.0.13-1.fc16.src.rpm
================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
================================================================================
[!] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
Provides: octave(api) = api-v47+}
Requires: (strange, are this used?)
__bilateral__.oct()(64bit)
__bwdist.oct()(64bit)
bwfill.oct()(64bit)
bwlabel.oct()(64bit)
__custom_gaussian_smoothing__.oct()(64bit)
deriche.oct()(64bit)
graycomatrix.oct()(64bit)
hough_line.oct()(64bit)
__imboundary__.oct()(64bit)
nonmax_supress.oct()(64bit)
rotate_scale.oct()(64bit)
__spatial_filtering__.oct()(64bit)
Regarding the rpmlint warnings:
Is the obsolete really necessary? (It is a genuine question and I accept your
answer). It just seems strange to see this for a package that has almost two
years.
With respect to the "dangerous-command-in-%preun" I think that this is a false
positive so it can be ignored (unless I am missing something obvious).
The provides part seems to be a mistake in octave-devel, we should probably
contact the octave maintainer for this issue. ;-)
If the value is correct then it is weird.
What should we do with the final provides? Probably we need to rework the
provides filter for octave packages. What do you think?
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list