Reviewing Octave Forge packages

From Octave
Revision as of 04:47, 10 June 2019 by Siko1056 (talk | contribs) (Remove redundant Category:Packages.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Help reviewing Octave Forge packages

We need help. Here is how:

  1. Pick a package at
  2. Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box:
    • [x] for passed
    • [n/a] for non-applicable
    • [ ] for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
    • [F] for fails.
  3. Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above

What happens next

An admin will try to look over your review and hopefully release the package. More than one person can review a package, in fact that would be great.


== Repository ==
[ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset
[ ] checkout code from Sourceforge, commit/changeset is present

== Compile and Install ==
[ ] release candidate installs on latest stable Octave release
[ ] no compiler errors or warnings
[ ] ran tests using <code>runtests /path/to/pkg</code> (use <code>oruntests</code> instead in Octave 6.0.0 or later)
[ ] ran all tests, including those in src (how??)
[ ] ran doctest on all functions (optional)
[ ] ran generate_package_html (if Makefile present try <code> make html </code>)
[ ] no makeinfo errors and warnings during HTML build
[ ] unpacked and spot-checked the generated HTML documentation

== Interaction with pkg ==
[ ] <code>pkg load foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg unload foo</code> runs with errors or warnings
[ ] <code>pkg uninstall foo</code> runs with errors or warnings

[ ] Above steps were run on Octave and OS versions:
     *  ________
     *  ________

== Package files in release candidate tarball ==
[ ] tested with minimum Octave version list in DESCRIPTION
[ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX
[ ] check licenses (<code>licensecheck -r</code> "plus some manual checks").
[ ] package files are readable/executable by all users (reasonably current maintainer Makefile should be doing this).
[ ] version number in src/ (if present) matches DESCRIPTION and tarball name.
[ ] any version numbers within the help or function body (e.g., banners) matches above.
[ ] contains no hidden dot files, junk backup files, results of configure runs, etc (should be taken care of by maintainer Makefile).

Other info

TODO: how does one check all functions are listed in INDEX?

TODO: document how to run "all tests including those in src" Someday this should be just "pkg test foo".

TODO: would be good to provide more specific instructions for when the package as a Maintainer Makefile? But we don't usually put the Maintainer Makefile in the .tar.gz package to do? (At least Doctest and Symbolic don't).

Meta helping

  • Feel free to edit this wiki with explanations of the check list tasks
  • Please do add (reasonable) tasks to the check list

Common problems

Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for

  • INDEX is missing some new functions added
  • NEWS has not been updated or is missing something big
  • Version numbers or dates do not match between DESCRIPTION and NEWS
  • Common makeinfo errors like "@bye seen before @end deftypefn"
  • DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me
  • Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures