[Bug 1706659] Review Request: ensmallen - header-only C++ library for efficient mathematical optimization

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706659

Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Your spec and srpm are not in sync; be sure to use the right one when you
import it.

Approved.

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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "Boost Software License BSL BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* BSL". 253 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in 1706659-ensmallen/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[?]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ensmallen-devel-1.15.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
          ensmallen-1.15.1-1.fc31.src.rpm
ensmallen-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimizers ->
optimizer, optimizes, optimize rs
ensmallen-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ensmallen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimizers -> optimizer,
optimizes, optimize rs
ensmallen.src:34: W: macro-in-comment %{_prefix}
ensmallen.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir}
ensmallen.src:36: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
ensmallen.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
ensmallen.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
ensmallen.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line
11)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
ensmallen-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimizers ->
optimizer, optimizes, optimize rs
ensmallen-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.ensmallen.org <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
ensmallen-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://www.ensmallen.org/files/ensmallen-1.15.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
e597a7d488b59add432dba7e8a3911eddbbce30ab665e9e3fc0541466245997a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e597a7d488b59add432dba7e8a3911eddbbce30ab665e9e3fc0541466245997a


Requires
--------
ensmallen-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
ensmallen-devel:
    ensmallen-devel
    ensmallen-devel(x86-64)
    ensmallen-static



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- review/1706659-ensmallen/srpm/ensmallen.spec        2019-06-05
23:45:39.137176086 -0400
+++ review/1706659-ensmallen/srpm-unpacked/ensmallen.spec       2019-06-04
19:19:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -29,5 +29,12 @@

 %build
+# Don't use the usual RPM-based CXXFLAGS because they cause a segfault in the
+# tests (at a lower level than ensmallen).
 %cmake
+# -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=%{_prefix} \
+#      -DINCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=%{_includedir} \
+#      -DLIB_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=%{_libdir} \
+#      -DSYSCONF_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=%{_sysconfdir} \
+#      -DSHARE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=%{_datadir} .

 # Technically we don't need to build anything but it's a good sanity check to
@@ -39,6 +46,4 @@

 %check
-# Disable the SmallLovaszThetaSdp test---it exposes a bug in one of
ensmallen's
-# dependencies.
 ./ensmallen_tests ~SmallLovaszThetaSdp



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1706659
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java,
Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux