[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-10 12:54:00



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-0898127c09

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0898127c09

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libsemigroups

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Michael Cullen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Michael Cullen  ---
APPROVED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #13 from Michael Cullen  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===


= 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/michael/fedora-
 review/1476085-libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(ripgrep)
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 libsemigroups-doc , libsemigroups-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and 

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #12 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
> I haven't.

I encourage you to do so.  That is a great way to start making connections in
the Fedora community.

> I have made a handful or two
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.
> cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=VERIFIED_status=ASSIGNED_status=MODIFIE
> D_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=RELEASE_PENDING_status=PO
> ST=zebob.m%40gmail.
> com_to1=1=1=1=exact_id=
> 7650438

Okay, I will try to take a look at these in the coming week.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #11 from Jerry James  ---
Good heavens.  What was that remark you made about not thinking clearly? :-) 
Okay, I added the license to the -doc subpackage, and also made -doc be noarch.
 These are the actual URLs this time:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.fc27.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> > No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.
> 
> Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list?  What review request(s)
> have you submitted?

I haven't.

I have made a handful or two
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=VERIFIED_status=ASSIGNED_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=RELEASE_PENDING_status=POST=zebob.m%40gmail.com_to1=1=1=1=exact_id=7650438

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #9 from Michael Cullen  ---
Ok, nearly there. A couple of things about that doc subpackage though.

One of the review checklist items is:
* License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

it's possible to install the doc subpackage without getting the license file.
Conceptually I can see why you might just want the docs (though it's unlikely!)
so maybe the best thing to do is to include the license file in the docs
package as well?

Also, I wonder if the doc package should be noarch? 

Other than that it looks good. that pthread thing looks ugly and I can't help
thinking there's something else going on there but it'll do.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #8 from Michael Cullen  ---
I'm guessing you mean 

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

(just fixing the SRPM filename to refer to version 2 rather than a 404 error!)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #7 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #5)
> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise
> -> initialize
> 
> yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american
> english spellings :-)

Actually, I'm a Yank. :-)  I've gotten into the bad habit of ignoring rpmlint's
complaints about misspelled words, because it is nearly always wrong.  I'll
rededicate myself to looking through the list of words for those rare cases
where it actually finds a misspelled word.

> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
> /usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create
> 
> looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option

Actually, a peek at the build logs show that the -pthread compiler option is
being passed.  Apparently that does not imply linking with -lpthread, at least
for a shared library.  I've forced the issue by hacking up the Makefile to add
-lpthread, which fixes the problem.  Thanks for spotting that!

> I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage

Done.  I also added the standard lines in %build to eliminate hardcoded rpaths.
 New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #6 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.

Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list?  What review request(s) have
you submitted?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #5 from Michael Cullen  ---
Robert-André - Ah yeah I thought that might be the case

A few more comments:

* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise ->
initialize

yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american
english spellings :-)

* libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
/usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create

looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option

I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #3 from Michael Cullen  ---
Robert-André: if you want to take this to completion feel free, but since you
didn't claim it I will as part of a review swap with bug 1476014

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Michael Cullen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mich...@cullen-online.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mich...@cullen-online.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thank you for the review, Robert-André.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

That page is out of date.  See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B for the latest
guidelines.

>  - You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.

I can, but I don't like those macros.  They seem to me to add verbosity for no
gain.

>  - You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

Okay.

>  - Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large
> could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large
> number of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered
> "large" and should be in a separate -doc subpackage.

Okay, I will fix this when I get home from work and upload a new package. 
Thank you!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,


A couple of points regarding your package:

 - gcc-c++ is not needed as a BuildRequires. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

 - You can use the macro %{__rm} instead of rm alone.

 - You should use the %make_build macro instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

 - Per guidelines, "large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large
could be size (~1MB) or number of files". Your documentation has a large number
of files (320) and is nearly 3MB in size, it is thus considered "large" and
should be in a separate -doc subpackage.



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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libsemigroups/review-
 libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in