Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: TOPCOM - Triangulations Of Point Configurations and Oriented Matroids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700959
Summary: Review Request: TOPCOM - Triangulations Of Point Configurations and Oriented Matroids Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganjerry@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM-0.16.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: TOPCOM is a package for computing Triangulations Of Point Configurations and Oriented Matroids. It is a component of SINGULAR, which is a component of SAGE.
This package will not build on Fedora 14 or earlier. Fedora 15 or Rawhide is required.
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=700959
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-10-18 14:10:40 EDT --- I have updated to version 0.17.1 and improved the man pages in a few ways. New URLs:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM-0.17.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
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=700959
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-11-12 19:19:39 EST --- Minor changes, plus building for F16 instead of F15:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM-0.17.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
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=700959
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at
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=700959
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
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=700959
--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-03-15 11:51:04 EDT --- The build fails:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3897841
I also tried it on F16 i386, where it fails as well.
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=700959
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2012-03-28 18:52:46 EDT --- Sorry to be slow, Volker. The koji build failure was due to a change in C++ name lookups in GCC 4.7. That caused several of my other packages to fail to build, also. I've patched the problem. I don't understand the F16 i386 failure, as it works for me. If it still fails for you, can you attach a build log?
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM-0.17.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
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=700959
--- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-03-29 04:22:32 EDT --- Builds fine now!
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=700959
--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-03-29 16:09:51 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ==== [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 Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: 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. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The libs sub-package can be installed without having the license file.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [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. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint TOPCOM-devel-0.17.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm
TOPCOM-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint TOPCOM-debuginfo-0.17.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint TOPCOM-0.17.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm
TOPCOM.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Triangulations -> Triangulation, Triangulation's, Triangulation s TOPCOM.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint TOPCOM-0.17.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
TOPCOM.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Triangulations -> Triangulation, Triangulation's, Triangulation s TOPCOM.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d TOPCOM.src: W: invalid-url Source1: TOPCOM-man.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint TOPCOM-libs-0.17.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm
TOPCOM-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libTOPCOM.so.0.17 exit@GLIBC_2.0 TOPCOM-libs.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Nothing to worry about here.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/makerpm/700959/TOPCOM-0.17.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : eb9472f9ad66e00c568744a19156fccd MD5SUM upstream package : eb9472f9ad66e00c568744a19156fccd
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
I tried to run one binary and it didn't crash, but I'm afraid I can't try a lot more.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Header and manpage timestamps are not preserved
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The libs sub-package can be installed without having the license file.
[!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Header and manpage timestamps are not preserved
Please also inform the author about the FSF address and probably the README encoding.
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=700959
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2012-03-29 17:32:51 EDT --- Thanks for the review. I sent email to the author about the FSF address and encoding issues. I moved most of the documentation to the -libs subpackage where it belongs, and preserved the man page and header file timestamps. New URLs:
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/TOPCOM/TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc18.src.rpm
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=700959
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at 2012-03-30 02:32:13 EDT --- APPROVED
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=700959
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2012-03-30 10:40:27 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: TOPCOM Short Description: Triangulations Of Point Configurations and Oriented Matroids Owners: jjames Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
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=700959
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-30 11:00:22 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=700959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
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=700959
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-30 12:02:09 EDT --- TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc17
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=700959
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-30 12:02:27 EDT --- TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc16
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=700959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-30 14:01:07 EDT --- TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
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=700959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-04-08 21:58:03
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-08 21:58:03 EDT --- TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
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=700959
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc16 |TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc17
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-04-11 23:15:30 EDT --- TOPCOM-0.17.1-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org