https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919703
Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |loganjerry(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> ---
Sorry, Real Life has been extremely busy lately, leaving me little time to work
on all of my unfinished Fedora projects.
Issues, in no particular order:
1. This package mimics GAP itself by using a configure script that assumes
that sigsetjmp() is a function. Since it is a macro, the configure test
fails. A variation on the sed expression I used for GAP fixes this
problem, although you may prefer a patch. Better yet would be to get the
two upstreams to fix their configure scripts.
sed -i '/sigsetjmp/,/_ACEOF/s/^ac_fn_c_check_func.*/if [ $ac_func =
sigsetjmp ]; then\nac_fn_c_check_func "$LINENO" "__sigsetjmp"
"$as_ac_var";\nelse\n&\nfi/' -i src/configure
2. I supply a value for SYS_DEFAULT_PATHS for GAP. Would that be appropriate
here, too? (Grep for SYS_DEFAULT_PATHS in the libgap sources.) If so, you
perhaps want to pass -DSYS_DEFAULT_PATHS=%{_gap_dir}.
3. I also see lots of code guarded by #if HAVE_LIBREADLINE, but no configure
test for readline. Should this package BR libreadline-devel and pass
-DHAVE_LIBREADLINE to the compiler?
4. Upstream needs to add #include <stdio.h> to libgap.c and error_handler.c:
libgap.c: In function 'libgap_call_error_handler':
libgap.c:156:5: warning: implicit declaration of function 'printf'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
libgap.c:156:5: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function
'printf' [enabled by default]
error_handler.c: In function 'handler':
error_handler.c:8:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'printf'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
error_handler.c:8:3: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
function 'printf' [enabled by default]
5. This happens because LIBGAP_SIGNALS is not defined:
sysfiles.c:3268:39: warning: 'func2' is used uninitialized in this function
[-Wuninitialized]
sysfiles.c:3249:27: note: 'func2' was declared here
6. Some tests are failing with a segfault, but since the test program returns
0 in every case, %check doesn't notice. Can you find some way of causing
%check to fail if some of the tests fail?
make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/libgap-4.5.7/src/test'
--------------------
Input: 1 + CyclicGroup(2);
Error: Error, no method found! For debugging hints type ?Recovery from
NoMethodFound
Error, no 1st choice method found for `+' on 2 arguments
Caught signal 11
signal caught
...
Input: 1/0;
Error: Error, Rational operations: <divisor> must not be zero
Caught signal 11
signal caught
...
Input: if 4>3 then
Print("hi
");
fi;
Caught signal 11
signal caught
7. There is 1 download on the libGAP web page, "libGAP (2).pdf", which
contains a slideshow about libGAP. Is that worth including as %doc?
8. The actual license covering this project is in doubt. It includes a
COPYING file that contains the text of the GPLv3, but there is no statement
anywhere in the code or on the web site that identifies that license, at
least not that I have been able to find. The project incorporates code
from GAP, which is GPLv2+. According to the "GNU General Public License
(no version)" entry in this table:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
the lack of a statement means that the project is covered by any version of
the GPL. However, since it incorporates known GPLv2+ code, I think the
correct license for this project is also GPLv2+. Upstream should clarify
this.
9. This package is for version 4.5.7, which is needed for Fedora 18. However,
for F-19 and later, a version that supports GAP 4.6 is needed. On 25 Apr
2013, a commit was made upstream to support gap 4.6.3.
10. The package summary should not repeat the name of the package. In this
case, I suggest "C library version of the GAP kernel". If you change it,
be sure to update the name of the bug also.
11. The undefined non-weak symbols reported at the end of this report show
that the library needs to be linked with -lm. This can be accomplished
like this:
%configure --enable-shared --disable-static LIBS="-lm"
12. The unused direct shlib dependency on libgmp reported at the end shows
another problem: GMP is detected, but not actually used. I think you need
to add -DUSE_GMP to CFLAGS for that to happen. This smells like an
upstream bug to me, but upstream may differ. :-)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
See issue #8 above.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0
[x]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
See issue #9 above.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
See issue #6 above.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[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: libgap-4.5.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libgap-devel-4.5.7-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libgap.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libGAP -- a C library version of
the GAP kernel
libgap.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C libGAP
libgap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spkg -> pkg, s pkg
libgap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsi
libgap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libgap-devel libgap
libgap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libgap.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libGAP -- a C library version of
the GAP kernel
libgap.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C libGAP
libgap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US spkg -> pkg, s pkg
libgap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsi
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 ceil
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 atan2
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 fmod
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 acos
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 sin
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 rint
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 atan
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 asin
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 hypot
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 exp
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 tan
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 cos
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 log
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 pow
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 sqrt
libgap.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0 floor
libgap.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgap.so.0.0.0
/lib64/libgmp.so.10
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
libgap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libgap(x86-64)
libgap.so.0()(64bit)
libgap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
libgap-devel:
libgap-devel
libgap-devel(x86-64)
libgap:
libgap
libgap(x86-64)
libgap.so.0()(64bit)
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 919703 -m fedora-18-x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rCoL1a3HRu&a=cc_unsubscribe