https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651824 --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Please expand tabs to spaces (or collapse spaces to tabs: needs to be consistent, not a mix of the two) - Please also remove doc/_build (pre-built docs) in %prep to ensure a clean build: rm -frv doc/_build - The test fails because setup.py wants an older version of neo: neo<0.8.0,<=0.7.1 (this condition seems wrong). Could you please ask upstream if this is required? - If this is OK, the tests require files to run which are not included in the pypi tar. Using the github tarball fixes some of them. One tests requires a download, and this one can be removed (or test disabled): test_unitary_event_analysis.py Another fails on i386 architecture. You should test if it also fails on the other 32 bit arches, and report this upstream. - Please remove the explicit requirements (they're not correct), and let the automatic generator do its thing - Looks like it can use MPI, please include mpi4py as a requires or a weak dep - Shouldn't it be a noarch package? We can't ship the `fim.so` file that is in the pypi tar. It must be generated from the sources, which are here, and used as a BR, R: http://www.borgelt.net/pyfim.html. So this will have to be packaged also. (I'll look into this now) - Docs failing should be reported upstream, but we've got to test it in a fresh virtual environment first to confirm it isn't a Fedora specific issue. I've attached a diff with some improvements. Please do have a look. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- review/1651824-python-elephant/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ The SourceURL is wrong. Should be %pypi_source. However, please use the github tar as suggested. That will also fix this issue. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD (unspecified)", "Expat License", "Expat License BSD (unspecified)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 651 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- review/1651824-python-elephant/licensecheck.txt Should include MIT for files in elephant/spade_src/ The LICENSE file from there should also be listed in %license. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- review/1651824-python-elephant/srpm-unpacked/python-elephant.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.16 starting (python version = 3.7.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.16 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.16 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1651824-python-elephant/results/python3-elephant-0.6.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 31 --setopt=deltarpm=False --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1651824-python-elephant/results/python3-elephant-0.6.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-elephant-0.6.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm python-elephant-0.6.2-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-elephant.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) electrophysiology -> electrocardiography python3-elephant.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neurophysiology -> physiological python3-elephant.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/elephant/spade_src/fim.so python-elephant.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) electrophysiology -> electrocardiography python-elephant.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neurophysiology -> physiological python-elephant.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %package python-elephant.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name} python-elephant.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %description python-elephant.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name} python-elephant.src:85: W: macro-in-comment %check python-elephant.src:86: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} python-elephant.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %files python-elephant.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name} python-elephant.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %doc python-elephant.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %license python-elephant.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 13) python-elephant.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 57: %{pypi_name}-doc python-elephant.src: E: specfile-error python-elephant.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 59: %{pypi_name}-doc python-elephant.src: E: specfile-error python-elephant.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 94: %{pypi_name}-doc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 16 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-elephant: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/elephant/spade_src/fim.so Source checksums ---------------- http://neuralensemble.org/elephant/archive/v0.6.2/elephant-0.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14bb2d938faa9c52aeaf9e6c459825e15d102862e5cbbca3f56fa57258d92375 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a4e937a5a4d41b304717b08e7d7a67e871e0dfd2f619125c7c602a6d3955ebf diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- python3-elephant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-sphinx_rtd_theme python3.7dist(neo) python3.7dist(numpy) python3.7dist(quantities) python3.7dist(scipy) python3.7dist(six) python3dist(nbsphinx) python3dist(neo) python3dist(nose) python3dist(numpy) python3dist(numpydoc) python3dist(pandas) python3dist(quantities) python3dist(scikit-learn) python3dist(scipy) python3dist(six) python3dist(sphinx) python3dist(sphinx-gallery) python3dist(sphinxcontrib-bibtex) Provides -------- python3-elephant: python3-elephant python3-elephant(x86-64) python3.7dist(elephant) python3dist(elephant) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1651824 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
