[Bug 894602] Review Request: coin-or-Dip - Decomposition for Integer Programming

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894602



--- Comment #10 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> ---
- Fix:
/usr/bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/coin-or-Dip-docdir.patch
patching file Makefile.in
Hunk #1 succeeded at 475 (offset -1 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 484 (offset -1 lines).

- Please, use %license.

- An openmpi sub-package is envisaged.
  Why it's not built ?  

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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 330 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894602-coin-or-Dip/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.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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 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.

===== 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[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: coin-or-Dip-0.91.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          coin-or-Dip-devel-0.91.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          coin-or-Dip-0.91.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
coin-or-Dip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subgradient -> sub
gradient, sub-gradient, gradient
coin-or-Dip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations ->
customization, customization's, customization s
coin-or-Dip.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libDecomp.so.1.5.1
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
coin-or-Dip.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dip
coin-or-Dip-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
coin-or-Dip-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
coin-or-Dip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subgradient -> sub
gradient, sub-gradient, gradient
coin-or-Dip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizations ->
customization, customization's, customization s
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
coin-or-Dip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    coin-or-CoinUtils-devel
    coin-or-Dip(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(alps)
    pkgconfig(cgl)
    pkgconfig(coinutils)
    pkgconfig(osi)
    pkgconfig(osi-cbc)
    pkgconfig(osi-clp)

coin-or-Dip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libAlps.so.3()(64bit)
    libCbc.so.3()(64bit)
    libCbcSolver.so.3()(64bit)
    libCgl.so.1()(64bit)
    libClp.so.1()(64bit)
    libClpSolver.so.1()(64bit)
    libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit)
    libDecomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libOsi.so.1()(64bit)
    libOsiCbc.so.3()(64bit)
    libOsiClp.so.1()(64bit)
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
coin-or-Dip-devel:
    coin-or-Dip-devel
    coin-or-Dip-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(dip)

coin-or-Dip:
    coin-or-Dip
    coin-or-Dip(x86-64)
    libDecomp.so.1()(64bit)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/Dip/Dip-0.91.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
ca6253864d283f11377b54143d8cb6735248fef1ea0efb35ac09ad4e9c9b06d7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ca6253864d283f11377b54143d8cb6735248fef1ea0efb35ac09ad4e9c9b06d7


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894602
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]