[Bug 673839] Review Request: boost141 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

Sat Feb 12 22:20:03 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=673839

Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org |mcepl at redhat.com

--- Comment #11 from Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> 2011-02-12 17:20:01 EST ---
- BAD : rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package.

It is not silent:
boost141-date-time.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sodium.resophonic.com/boost-cmake/1.41.0.cmake0/ <urlopen error timed
out>
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.
boost141-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.
boost141-graph-mpich2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit
/usr/lib64/mpich2/lib/libboost_graph_parallel.so.5 exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork()
context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library
function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the
error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any
state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an
actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the
situation.
boost141-math.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
boost141.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{_docdir}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
boost141.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
boost141.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
boost141.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{_arch}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
boost141.src:546: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 402, tab: line
546)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
boost141.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: boost-cmake-soname.patch
A patch is included in your package but was not applied. Refer to the patches
documentation to see what's wrong.

I have tried couple of times to download source tarball from the Source0 URL
and I was never succesful. Other issues should be IMHO addressed as well. I
know, that this is just repackaging of Fedora package, so I believe help of the
boost maintainer would be helpful as well.

+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
+ GOOD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

Well, not exactly. When just randomly opening boost/rational.hpp I found this
pearl:

//  (C) Copyright Paul Moore 1999. Permission to copy, use, modify, sell and
//  distribute this software is granted provided this copyright notice appears
//  in all copies. This software is provided "as is" without express or
//  implied warranty, and with no claim as to its suitability for any purpose.

// boostinspect:nolicense (don't complain about the lack of a Boost license)
// (Paul Moore hasn't been in contact for years, so there's no way to change
the
// license.)

This is probably OK, but packager should take a look at the licenses actually
used in the package and change License field appropriately.

+ GOOD: LICENSE file is in %doc.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
- BAD : The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
I was not able to get original sources.
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
  Koji scratch build is
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2830734
+ GOOD: builds on all architectures
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji)
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
  No locale support.
+ GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: -doc subpackage provided.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package.
+ GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage.
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.

Please fix the above indicated problems.

-- 
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.