https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Bug ID: 861922 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: bibutils - Bibliography conversion Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: petersen@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-1.fc17.src.r... Description: Conversion between various bibliography formats Fedora Account System Username: petersen
Needed for ghc-hs-bibutils -> ghc-citeproc -> pandoc to enable pandoc to handle bibliographies.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4546275
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |861923 (ghc-hs-bibutils)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |bibutils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Fixed missing BR for tcsh:
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.r...
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4549516
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Jens,
I'll review this one.
Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hello,
[+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name. [+] Spec has consistant macro usage. [+] Meets Packaging Guidelines. [+] License [?] License field in spec matches ^^ The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere in the source.
[+] License file included in package [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible. [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh bibutils.spec Getting http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bibutils/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz to /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 436k 100 436k 0 0 424k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 424k b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3 /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3 /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz removed `/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz' removed directory: `/tmp/review'
[+] BuildRequires correct [+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. [+] Package is code or permissible content. [+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. [+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun [+] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig [+] .so files in -devel subpackage. [+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ^^ An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires
[+] .la files are removed.
[+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. [+] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [+] Package owns all the directories it creates. [+] No rpmlint output. ^^ [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/bibutils.spec ./bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/bibutils-* ../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic ../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
-> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay.
bibutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib
-> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them
bibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
-> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream
bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 29 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$
-> Look okay. Please correct the spelling errors if applicable.
[+] final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm [-]qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) == bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.src.rpm == Provides:
Requires: tcsh
== bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19
Requires: libbibutils.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
== bibutils-debuginfo-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-debuginfo = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-debuginfo(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19
Requires:
== bibutils-devel-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-devel = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-devel(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 pkgconfig(bibutils) = 4.15
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19 libbibutils.so.4()(64bit)
== bibutils-libs-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-libs(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 libbibutils.so.4()(64bit)
Requires: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
[ankur@ankur result]$ ^^ Looks good
SHOULD Items:
[+] Should build in mock. [+] Should build on all supported archs [+] Should function as described. [+] Should have sane scriptlets. [+] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [+] Should have dist tag [+] Should package latest version [+] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. Licence clarification 2. Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage)
Everything else looks good. Almost good to go.
Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Hi Ankur, thanks for reviewing the package.
(In reply to comment #3)
[?] License field in spec matches ^^ The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere in the source.
Right, the problem is the source files do not state explicitly that they are GPLv2+ (they just say "GPL"), so I defaulted to GPL+.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_versio...
I guess I should ask the upstream maintainer to clarify the GPL version anyway.
However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+. I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+, perhaps?
[+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ^^ An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better?
Good point - fixing
bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects
changing this to "converts"
bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
-> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay.
Yeah, for better or worse it is a tcsh script!
bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib
-> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them
Ok let me build the manpage included in the src.
bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
-> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream
Ok will ask upstream about this too.
- Licence clarification
- Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage)
Everything else looks good. Almost good to go.
Thanks.
Updated package should hopefully fix the remaining issues:
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.r...
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4550007
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com ---
However grepping more carefully now I see there is a manpage src file in docbook (.dbk) which states the manpage is GPLv2+. I am not sure if that is sufficient to make the whole package GPLv2+, perhaps?
Correction: the manpage states itself is GPL version 2.
"This manual page is distributed under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License."
Anyway I am writing to upstream now hoping to get some clarification on the GPL version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com ---
SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.r...
(Sorry that was supposed to be -3.fc17!)
After communicating with the upstream author and maintainer, I understand his intention is that the package should be GPLv2 I think.
Anyway until there is a new release which clarify the intended GPL version I am going back to GPL+ for the source code and GPLv2 for the manpage.
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/bibutils/bibutils-4.15-4.fc17.src.r...
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4557897 (rawhide)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Jens,
Looks good to me. Licensing is okay too. Please remember to update the license whenever upstream makes the change.
XXX APPROVED XXX
Thanks, Ankur
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks, FranciscoD
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bibutils Short Description: Bibliography conversion tools Owners: petersen Branches: f18 f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bibutils-4.15-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bibutils-4.15-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bibutils-4.15-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bibutils-4.15-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bibutils-4.15-4.fc16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- bibutils-4.15-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
--- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Opps - removing the erroneous initialCC - this is not a Haskell specific package.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |bibutils-4.15-4.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-11-18 21:56:53
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org