https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976886 --- Comment #10 from Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx --- Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ase/v04/python-ase.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-ase/v04/python-ase-3.7.1.3184-4.fc20.src.rpm (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #9) > (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. OK, removed > > # 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. > OK > ##### > > | %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6 > | Requires: pygtk2 > | %endif > > Just using `%if 0%{?rhel} <= 6` should be enough and will improve > readability. we need it. 0%{?rhel} <= 6 alone would be true on Fedora. > > ##### > > > %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. OK, removed > > > 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 "" \}` i got "unclosed macro or bad line continuation", so i use --vendor=="ase". > > ##### > > | %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 6 > | %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info > | %endif > > Same as above: `%{?!el5:%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info}` OK > > ##### > > Is there a real need for an empty dir %{_datadir}/%{name} ? removed. > > ##### > > 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=huTN8r7NZC&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review