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=665853 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-01-13 04:17:27 EST --- Review of h5py, 12th January: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines YES: It does. - Spec file matches base package name. YES: It does. - Spec has consistant macro usage. YES: It does. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. YES: It does but see comments about eggs below. - License YES: BSD - License field in spec matches YES: - License file included in package YES: LICENSE.txt and licenses/*.txt - Spec in American English YES: It is. - Spec is legible. YES: It is. - Sources match upstream md5sum: YES: but see rpmlint error below. $ md5sum h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch YES: Builds as is in koji. - BuildRequires correct YES: Builds in koji - Spec handles locales/find_lang YES: No locale. - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. YES: Is not relocatable. - Package hasÂ%defattr and permissions on files is good. YES: It does. - Package has a correctÂ%clean section. YES: - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) NO: It has %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) - Package is code or permissible content. YES: - Doc subpackage needed/used. YES: not needed. - PackagesÂ%doc files don't affect runtime. YES: Theyt don't. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun Not relavent. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig Not relavent. - .so files in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - -devel package Requires:Â%{name} =Â%{version}-%{release} Not relavent. - .la files are removed. None created. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file It's not. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Koji. - Package has no duplicate files inÂ%files. It does not. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.] It does not. - Package owns all the directories it creates. It does. - No rpmlint output. $ rpmlint SPECS/h5py.spec RPMS/x86_64/h5py-* SRPMS/h5py-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm SPECS/h5py.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/utils.so utils.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_proxy.so _proxy.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5r.so h5r.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_conv.so _conv.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5o.so h5o.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5.so h5.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5l.so h5l.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5a.so h5a.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5f.so h5f.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5s.so h5s.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5p.so h5p.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5g.so h5g.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5z.so h5z.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5t.so h5t.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5fd.so h5fd.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5e.so h5e.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5i.so h5i.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5d.so h5d.so()(64bit) h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings. You could split datasets and datatypes into two wordss but I believe both to be on common usage. The "invalid-url" I do not understand, that URL works just fine? Do you see this with rpmlint? Issues: 1. You have a buildroot of BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) rather than the normal (?) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) maybe what you have is now permitted? It looks better in someways for sure. Of course it's not needed at all of new Fedoras. 2. Investigate the "invalid-url" 3. There are a lot of "private-shared-object-provides" , these can be removed with the use of %{?filter_provides_in:Â%filter_provides_inÂ.*/h5py/.*\.so} %{?filter_setup} 4. Do you need the "Requires: hdf" since this satisfied by the auto requires to "libhdf5.so.6()(64bit)" I would presume? 5. What's the reason for rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{python_sitearch}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.*.egg-info/ 6. Could you add a comment as to why "-fopenmp" has been added to the CFLAGS. Comments: I looked also at adding this to EPEL5. It seems while you can choose the 1.6 api to hdf you can't easily get around the requirement for python 2.5? However the package builds fine on EPEL6. Please could it be added to EPEL6 though that is not a requirement for the review. If my python26-numpy review ever makes it to EPEL5 then I will submit a patch for h5py to work with it. I have a user request for this on CentOS 5. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review