Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482216 --- Comment #12 from Rakesh Pandit <rpandit@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-15 02:41:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Here are my initial notes. I still have to check the licensing stuff, the doc > files and a few other things: > > * Please remove %{version} from URL. Isn't this the actual website? > http://code.enthought.com/projects/mayavi/ > > * Source0 gives 404. Also, could you use %{name} and %{version} in Source0 and > wherever else they can be used? > > ! Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream and upstream tracker > links should be given (if available) as comments > > ? Is the group tag correct? > > * The BR's python-devel, python-setupdocs, python-Traits don't seem necessary. > The package builds the same way without them. > python-setupdocs is required (build fails without it): distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('setupdocs>=1.0') Other two are not required. Removed them. > * rpmlint says: > Mayavi.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/mayavi/html/.buildinfo > Mayavi.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/tvtk/html/.buildinfo > Can we get rid of these files? > Done. > ? What is this line for? > sed -i 's/\.dev$//g' > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitearch}/%{name}-%{version}-*.egg-info/requires.txt > It removes .dev for versions in requires.txt, it is a known upstream problem .. and is being taken care in svn. > ? What is this file that gets packaged? > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/Mayavi-3.2.0-py2.6-nspkg.pth > Python script to locate enthought modules. Required, did not checked details. > ! I don't think we need this anymore: > # unstripped-binary-or-object > #chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{python_sitearch}/enthought/tvtk/array_ext.so > If you want to keep it, please escape the macro with an extra % > removed. > - koji rawhide and F-10 seem fine > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1408825 > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1408830 > > ? There is this release dependent BR: > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 11 > BuildRequires: numpy-f2py > %else > BuildRequires: numpy > %endif > Also there is this release independent R: > Requires: numpy > Is there an inconsistency here? > No, actually in F-11 distutils sub package was moved to numpy-f2py but numpy still has it for other stable releases. It is a BR. But mayavi still uses numpy for functioning (array calculations), which is a R. > ! It seems like the description is made to span 70 columns. Can you make it > span 80 columns instead (as far as possible)? > I tried doing it .. but it messes it up, my emacs adjusted it better so I have left it that way. > * Package requires > python-Traits >= 3.1.0 > python-TraitsBackendQt >= 3.1.0 > Can you add these versioned dependencies? > fixed. > * Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file > (which applies to both the mayavi2 and tvtk_doc executables), and that file > must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. > Follow: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets > > * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > This package owns > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/enthought/ > which is also owned by python-Traits. This needs attention. > Fixed. > * tvtk_doc exits via segmentation fault. It works on my F11, tested on F10 also, may you paste the error message or any crash dump ? I was not able to reproduce. Will update once issues in other comments are also fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review