Difference between revisions of "Reviewing Octave Forge packages"
m (Siko1056 moved page Reviewing Octave-Forge packages to Reviewing Octave Forge packages: "Octave Forge" spelling.)
Revision as of 04:04, 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:
[ ]for skipped (because you cannot do it, missing software, etc)
- 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/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).
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).
- Feel free to edit this wiki with explanations of the check list tasks
- Please do add (reasonable) tasks to the check list
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