https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919703 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review