Reviewing Octave Forge packages: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Checklist: added dep) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m (Remove redundant Category:Packages.) |
||
(19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Help reviewing Octave | == Help reviewing Octave Forge packages == | ||
We need help. Here is how: | We need help. Here is how: | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
# Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/ | # Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/ | ||
# Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box: | # Copy the check-list below and fill it out, marking each box: | ||
#* <code>[x]</code> for passed | |||
#* <code>[n/a]</code> for non-applicable | |||
#* <code>[ ]</code> for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc) | |||
#* <code>[F]</code> for fails. | |||
# Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above | # Paste your filled in check-list as a comment on the issue above | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Checklist == | |||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
[ ] release candidate | == Repository == | ||
[ ] no compiler errors or | [ ] maintainer has specified a corresponding revision commit/changeset | ||
[ ] ran | [ ] 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 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 | [ ] reasonable dependencies listed in DESCRIPTION | ||
[ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match | [ ] NEWS file makes sense, version and date match | ||
[ ] All functions are listed in INDEX | [ ] 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/configure.ac (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). | |||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
== Common problems == | == 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 | Here are some common problems that reviewers can check for | ||
Line 45: | Line 77: | ||
* DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me | * DESCRIPTION says pkg works with old Octave 4.x but it fails for me | ||
* Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures | * Obviously, compiler errors, warnings, test failures | ||
[[Category:Octave Forge]] |
Revision as of 11:47, 10 June 2019
Help reviewing Octave Forge packages
We need help. Here is how:
- Pick a package at https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/package-releases/
- 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.
- 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.
Checklist
== 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/configure.ac (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