https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886 --- Comment #4 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #3) > These are the changes: > > - added ase-gui.desktop, for the ag command. It refers to > Icon=/usr/share/python-ase/doc/_static/ase.ico . Is it OK? Icons for desktop-files should be installed inside %{_datadir}/pixmaps/ > - bug#976886#c2 fixed - spec uses a generated files.list with %dir, %lang > and py* files > > * Lots of sources and byte-compiled files end-up in > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/: > > > > ---> there shouldn't be any byte-compiled stuff in docs > > they should be placed as %doc examples/, I think. > > Would it be enough to remove (and is it really necessary) the py{c,o} files? Yes > I need to give a bit of explanation. > We use %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/ to store raw documentation (*rst), > example ASE python scripts (not part of the code), > and some additional static files (for example the ase-gui icon is stored > there). Are there any other files needed during runtime inside? Which? How many? If not, I'd recommend copying the .ico to pixmaps and rm'ing the whole dir. > Doing: > cd %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/ > sphinx-build . _build > would build ASE html documentation - but that takes time (~10 min), > and requires additional dependencies (povray). Since these files are only useful to generate a perfect clone of %{URL} and povray is non-free they're just a waste of space, I suppose. How about pre-building the html/img files, put them as Source1-tarball inside spec and install them as %doc in a doc-subpkg? This seem quite more useful, then providing files needing non-free software for build, to me. Another possibility would be to include the pdf-man as Source1 and install it into doc-subpkg. You may want to move all %doc from main-pkg to doc-subpkg and just keep %doc LICENSE in main-pkg, then. > I can also see that numpy for example, which packages it's docs on Fedora > under %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}, also includes byte-compiled files: > $ rpm -ql numpy | grep basics\.pyc Then reviewer of this was lazy... It's common not to have anything binary-exec related in %doc. > > * BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > > > ---> prefered, but not mandatory, BuildRoot-path is: > > %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) > > OK, removed If you want to package for el5 (I think so), you will need to keep BuildRoot, but using the %(mktemp ...) variant is recommended. You may also want to use conditial exapansion for el5-only things so fedora-review won't report false positives and reviewers are aware this intended to be pkged for el5, e.g. %{?el5:BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)} For el5 some more adaptions will be needed in spec: %install %{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}} ... %clean %{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}} You may use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %{buildroot}. Just personal preference. > > * PatchX: %{name}-%{version}... > > > > ---> name of patch should be static. those patches may apply to later > > versions as well. > > You possibly want propose your patches for inclusion in > > upstream-source and provide a link to this in comments > > The 2 patches have been already applied upstream, > and are needed only for the release being packaged here. > The relevant commits upstream are documented in the spec. Fine, thanks. > I prefer to keep the patches versioned, but can change them to static names > if that's a strict requirement. My impression was always that a patch > should contain version information if possible. I keep patches for > some projects that won't accept my dirty changes for years, > and having them versioned allows me to build old and new versions: > i change the version of the patch applied instead of changing the patch > itself. Was just a proposal from me. Whether keeping version or not, is more a question of personal preference... > > * you may wish to remove conditional around Version-tag by simply prefixing > > value of %{?upstream_svn} with a dot [.] > > OK Ahh. Looks better now. Thanks > > * there are no manpages for %{_bindir}/* > > > > ---> since you are affiliated with upstream you may want to create and > > include them by upstream-source > > our developers have been talking already for several years about man pages, > but no one will work on that in the near future Would be nice-to-have. There are some nifty tools around, e.g. asciidoc or rubygem-ronn for generating manpages from human-friendly markdown. But they are not mandory by guidelines, yet. > > * Is there a way to have this build with python3, too? > > ASE does not run with python3 yet. OK, some somewhen in future... ##### some questions about spec: BuildRequires: numpy BuildRequires: pygtk2 Are they really needed during %build? Requires: pygtk2 Requires: numpy Requires: libpng Are not needed, get pulled on deps by python-matplotlib Requires: texlive-latex emacs-auctex tex-preview What are these used for? Autodocs, only? Requires: python-sphinx Any use of this other then generating autodocs (which is quiet pointless without povray)? Requires: ImageMagick Really needed? ##### Wouldn't it make sense to put the gtk-interface (besides desktop-file and icon) into a gtk-subpkg? Can ASE be used in a sane and useful way from cli without the need for pulling lots of desktop-dependencies? ##### You may want to use the %fdupes-macro (BR: fdupes) to get rid of duplicate files and simply hard-link them: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/jacapo/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/elk/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/mopac/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/nwchem/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/gaussian/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/cmr/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/fio/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/abinit/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/exciting/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/tasks/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/aims/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/test/gromacs/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/gui/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/tasks/__init__.py /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ase/examples/__init__.py 14 duplicate files (in 1 sets), occupying 0 bytes. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ---> false positve: texlive-dvipng-bin.fc20.x86_64 is currently broken on rawhide. F19 install is fine. - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in python-ase See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache ---> false positive: desktop-file defines no mime-type. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 477 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/976886-python-ase/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 8 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. ---> doc on %{url} refers to 3.8.0??? Is that new release or devel-snap? [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed ---> currently ignored, see above. Final review will have two reports F19 and RAWHIDE if problem (from deps) still persists. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.32 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.32 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.32 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/976886-python-ase/results/python-ase-3.7.1.3184-2.fc20.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/976886-python-ase/results/python-ase-3.7.1.3184-2.fc20.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Fehler: Paket: 2:texlive-dvipng-bin-svn30088.0-24.20130531_r30819.fc20.x86_64 (fedora) Benötigt: libgd.so.2()(64bit) Sie können versuchen, mit --skip-broken das Problem zu umgehen. Sie könnten Folgendes versuchen: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-ase-3.7.1.3184-2.fc20.noarch.rpm python-ase.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpng python-ase.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ASE2ase python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary trajectoryinfo python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testase python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ag python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary foldtrajectory python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ase python-ase.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asec 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- python-ase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python ImageMagick emacs-auctex libpng numpy pygtk2 python(abi) python-matplotlib python-sphinx tex-preview texlive-latex Provides -------- python-ase: python-ase Source checksums ---------------- https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase-files/python-ase-3.7.1.3184.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de95f327ef93062bec5d564c41faf71784fb134a1b87fe02b25ea15fbc001674 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de95f327ef93062bec5d564c41faf71784fb134a1b87fe02b25ea15fbc001674 https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/ase-files/ase-gui.desktop : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 682d98bea676f3bf48f9624690a0df046305d69ff4086151f3d3e176531acd38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 682d98bea676f3bf48f9624690a0df046305d69ff4086151f3d3e176531acd38 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 976886 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gIp1Z86gvi&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review