Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1757993
Summary: | Review Request: octave-zmat - A data compression toolbox for MATLAB/Octave | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Qianqian Fang <fangqq> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, sanjay.ankur, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | sanjay.ankur:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2019-10-08 14:55:27 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1276941 |
Description
Qianqian Fang
2019-10-02 22:18:58 UTC
One question I have is about BuildArch - the code is portable and supports both i386 and x86_64, but if I change ExclusiveArch: x86_64 to BuildArch: i386, x86_64 then rpmlint gives an error: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag is i386 no longer supported? another question - do I need to explicitly add zlib as as Requires if octave already contains this dependency? thanks (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #1) > One question I have is about BuildArch - the code is portable and supports > both i386 and x86_64, but if I change > > ExclusiveArch: x86_64 > > to > > BuildArch: i386, x86_64 > > > then rpmlint gives an error: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag > > is i386 no longer supported? If the code is portable, then you must use `BuildArch: noarch`. It must build on all platforms that Fedora currently supports. You only use ExclusiveArch etc if the software does not support the whole set: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures And then tracker bugs must be filed to clarify this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support > > > another question - do I need to explicitly add zlib as as Requires if octave > already contains this dependency? > > thanks It is better to add it here explicitly---we should not rely on another package pulling it into the transaction. thanks, the spec file is now updated at https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/zmat/octave-zmat.spec https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/1fab7e3dad96803de281e3fc6e601cb38605c995 also included the suggestions from @eclipseo from other threads. builds fine on my machine. - Source1 should be: Source1: https://github.com/lloyd/easylzma/archive/0.0.7/easylzma-0.0.7.tar.gz (no v) - Use macros to respect Fedoras build flags %cmake . %make_build Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave- zmat/review-octave-zmat/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-debugsource-0.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc32.src.rpm octave-zmat.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mex -> Mex, me, ex octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzma -> lama octave-zmat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzip -> lip, zip, l zip octave-zmat.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/octave/packages/zmat-0.9/zipmat.mex octave-zmat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mex -> Mex, me, ex octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzma -> lama octave-zmat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lzip -> lip, zip, l zip 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. thanks, the above mentioned issues are now fixed https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14 (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #5) > thanks, the above mentioned issues are now fixed > > https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/ > 88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14 You forgot %cmake I must have missed it, now added https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/35c1397042882eccdbd69ed0ddd84c9b3b8d3e0c LGTM, Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) assigned himself though, so I will let him finish. Still `cmake` instead of `%cmake` here: https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/88ad13ec84685cd1369285ad13e7832bace75b14/octave-zmat.spec#L64 Please fix that before you import and build. Thanks very much, Robert---you're doing more of our reviews than we are :) XXX APPROVED XXX thanks Ankur. sorry for the confusion, I moved the spec file to the zmat branch (original url was on the master). The final URL is https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/blob/zmat/octave-zmat.spec I don't think I can change the bug report, but I will leave this URL here. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/octave-zmat FEDORA-2019-1d23beb3d7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1d23beb3d7 FEDORA-2019-6602723b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6602723b8b FEDORA-2019-92ffc4f574 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-92ffc4f574 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-92ffc4f574 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6602723b8b octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1d23beb3d7 octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. octave-zmat-0.9-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |