https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #5) > should build on el5 now. I assume this will happen on EPEL, so numpy will > be available? Yes, numpy is in EPEL for el5 and offered from "official" Repo on el6+ > I see also that the macros %dist, %rhel, %el5 are provided > on el5 by buildsys-macros, and this package is not installed by default, > so i tried to make some workarounds - is buildsys-macros installed on EPEL? # buildsys-macros on el5 provides %%dist, %%rhel, %%el5 %{!?dist: %global el5 1} %{!?dist: %global rhel 5} %{!?dist: %global dist .el5} Not needed: `buildsys-macros` are avail during koji-build, so there's no need for a hack. On el5 there should be a group called `RPM Development Tools` or similar which pulles `buildsys-macros`, rpmbuild and other needed packages. Simply installing `rpm-build` isn't enough. On Fedora it's the same, btw, `rpm-build` is not pulling `redhat-rpm-config`, which is needed for some proper macro-defines, too. # macros undefined on el5 %if 0%{?el5} %{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")} %{!?python_sitearch: %global python_sitearch %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib(1))")} %endif There's no need for explicit conditional on el5 here. %python_sitearch is not needed, too. So just keeping the plain python_sitelib-expansion will do. ##### | %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6 | Requires: pygtk2 | %endif Just using `%if 0%{?rhel} <= 6` should be enough and will improve readability. ##### > %fdupes is included now, but i see that %fdupes does not work on empty files: > rpm --eval %fdupes So you can drop fdupes. Then it will be no use. > so only pyc<->pyo are hard-linked. These get hard-linked by rpmbuilb auto-bytecompile. ##### | desktop-file-install \ | --dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications \ | %if 0%{?el5} | --vendor "" \ | %endif | %{SOURCE1} You can use expansion here, instead of conditional: `%{?el5:--vendor "" \}` ##### | %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 6 | %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info | %endif Same as above: `%{?!el5:%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info}` ##### Is there a real need for an empty dir %{_datadir}/%{name} ? ##### Package is fine, besides the mentioned above. ##### 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 ---> ignored: texlive-dvipng-bin-svn is broken on rawhide, see: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-June/184366.html Install went fine on F19 - 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: no mime-type defined in desktop-file - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop ---> false positive: desktop-file-install is invoked correctly. ===== 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. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: 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". 402 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/976886-python-ase/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine [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. [x]: 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 163840 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed ---> false positive: install fails on rawhide, see above. Everything is fine on F19. rpmlint results are from there. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-ase-3.7.1.3184-3.fc19.noarch.rpm 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; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-ase 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; 1 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-ase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-matplotlib 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 : 6d685a94f4d034a7ee2ed12057c5e44b3ed7d5e8c2b1fb4d2bb0104c214cd3a4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d685a94f4d034a7ee2ed12057c5e44b3ed7d5e8c2b1fb4d2bb0104c214cd3a4 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 ##### Please fix these small issues inside spec, and I'll grant review. -- 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=p8plzFre5H&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review