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=529198 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; 2009-10-16 08:00:50 EDT --- Do you *really* want to provide a static library...? Is there a working --disable-static option in configure? -- 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.

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=529198 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-01-15 15:49:12 EST --- $ rpmlint pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm x86_64/pynac-* pynac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. %changelog - update to new version - use %%global and not %%define Spec URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/pynac.spec SRPM URL: http://tomspur.fedorapeople.org/review/pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm -- 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.

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=529198 --- Comment #5 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler(a)dwheeler.com&gt; 2010-01-26 22:30:17 EST --- Here's my formal review, using http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines - there are a few issues, easily fixed. * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] $ rpmlint SPECS/pynac.spec RPMS/x86_64/pynac-* SRPMS/pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm pynac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This is as noted above. It's a warning, not an error; documentation would be really nice, but isn't strictly required. * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK. * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK. * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK. GPLv2+. * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK. I did a spot-check of source code; in directory src/ginac the files add.cpp and function.pl are clearly GPLv2+. * 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 must be included in %doc.[4] OK. COPYING has GPLv2. * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK. $ wget http://www.sagemath.org/packages/standard/pynac-0.1.10.spkg $ sha256sum pynac-0.1.10.spkg ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pynac-0.1.10.spkg 547326b9af0130ed8891847deca58787b651f346cbf609b3b067176276a81b1b pynac-0.1.10.spkg 547326b9af0130ed8891847deca58787b651f346cbf609b3b067176276a81b1b /home/rpmbuilder/rpmbuild/SOURCES/pynac-0.1.10.spkg * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK. Works on x86_64 Fedora 12. * MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] OK. It builds on all architectures, as shown by this koji build: koji build --scratch dist-f12 ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm $ koji build --scratch dist-f12 ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm Uploading srpm: ./pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:16 2.10 MiB 128.73 KiB/sec Created task: 1947029 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1947029 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): free 1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): free -> open (ppc05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free 1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): free 1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): free 1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free 1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): free -> open (ppc03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): free -> open (ppc09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): free -> open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): free -> open (x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 1947033 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 4 open 1 done 0 failed 1947031 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-06.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 3 open 2 done 0 failed 1947032 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc64): open (ppc09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 3 done 0 failed 1947030 buildArch (pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm, ppc): open (ppc03.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 4 done 0 failed 1947029 build (dist-f12, pynac-0.1.10-1.fc12.src.rpm): open (ppc05.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 5 done 0 failed * MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK. Did a mock build, it built. Also, see the koji builds. * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] NA. No locales. * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] OK. * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] OK * MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] NA * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] OK * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [14] OK * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] OK * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16] OK * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17] ISSUE. It uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{optflags}. As required by: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros it should use one style or the other. * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18] OK * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19] NA * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [19] OK * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20] OK * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21] NA * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22] ISSUE. It has a .pc file, but no "Requires: pkgconfig". * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [20] OK * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [23] OK * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] OK * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [24] NA * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25] OK * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26] OK * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27] OK SHOULD Items: * 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. [28] NA * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [29] None included. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [30] I did; it builds. * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [31] I did; see the koji output above. * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. I didn't do this. It's a library, so I can't just a command line, and the docs are lousy. The primary user is SAGE, so I'll let the SAGE packagers check that. * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [32] OK * SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [23] NA * SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [22] OK * SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [33] OK * SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[34] NA - it's a library. -- 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.

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=529198 Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-01-27 08:26:12 EST --- Just for completeness and because David asked to become a sponsor recently: (In reply to comment #6) Strictly speaking this is not needed any longer because rpm nowadays detects this automatically: Processing files: pynac-devel-0.1.10-1.fc12.x86_64 Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libpynac-0.1.so.10()(64bit) However I agree with David that the devel package should require pkgconfig explicitly. Please add INSTALL='install -p' to 'make install...' to preserve the original time stamps of the header files in the devel package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps -- 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.

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=529198 --- Comment #9 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler(a)dwheeler.com&gt; 2010-01-28 18:32:08 EST --- My theory is, if it's a MUST in the guidelines, then it's required... even if it's automated. I checked; all of the comments above have now been addressed. Thanks!! I did a few checks to make sure the new version didn't add surprises. I rebuilt the new version. It whines with a lot of warnings, but it builds fine. rpmlint output for this version is the same as before (see comment 5), so that's fine: rpmlint pynac.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/pynac-* ../SRPMS/pynac-0.1.11-1.fc12.src.rpm pynac-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I also did a mock build to see if new dependencies were created: mock --rebuild ../SRPMS/pynac-0.1.11-1.fc12.src.rpm and it went fine. APPROVED. -- 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.

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=529198 Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-01-29 06:15:39 EST --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pynac Short Description: manipulation of symbolic expressions Owners: tomspur Branches: F-12 InitialCC: -- 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.

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=529198 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2010-01-29 06:31:56 EST --- About Requires: pkgconfig - Note that the rule "any packages containing pkgconfig .pc file must have Requires: pkgconfig" is already removed on Fedora, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_sp... Well, actually I found that review guideline wiki page still leaves this as must item, however this is just not updated. -- 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.

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=529198 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2010-01-31 15:30:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) FYI: The new guidelines doesn't say something, that pkgconfig is *not* allowed to be required. So I explicitely require it for now, because this version was approved above and will remove it again with the next update to a new version some time in the future. -- 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.

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=529198 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.1.11-1.fc12 Resolution| |ERRATA -- 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.