[Bug 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617



--- Comment #21 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Looks pretty good. A few issues are noted below. Once clarified, this can be
approved.


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/
^
Please check this---fedora review failed to install the packages.

- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 5703680 bytes in 190 files.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_documentation

^
This is in a demos sub-package so that's OK.


- octave-mmc has a mex file, so it should not be noarch, should it. Please
  check. The files should go to %octpkglibdir instead of %octpkgdir too.

- Why is vim-common a BuildRequires?

- Do we know what versions of libraries are being bundled here? If so, please
  version the Provides commands for them.

- if SFMT is not being used, please delete it's source directory in %prep. This
  is done to ensure that it does not get enabled by mistake during a rebuild
  etc.

- Cosmetic: you don't need to repeat BuildRequires in the sub-package
  definitions.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
^
The build log has lots of compiler warnings, though. Please take a look.

[-]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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

===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
^
Not tested

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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
[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 1.4.20 starting (python version = 3.7.5)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
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: 1.4.20
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.20
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
          mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.src.rpm
mmc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmc
octave-mmclab.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/octave/packages/mmclab-1.7.9/mmcl.mex
octave-mmclab.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv
mmclab-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets,
data-sets, databases
mmclab-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data
sets, data-sets, databases
mmc-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets,
data-sets, databases
mmc-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data
sets, data-sets, databases
mmc.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ssemath)
mmc.src:16: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(cjson)
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fangq/mmc/archive/v1.7.9/mmc-1.7.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
5c30e86d60cae5d9233165ed50684ae7bb37b5a503266c3aceacd07fca3c85fd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5c30e86d60cae5d9233165ed50684ae7bb37b5a503266c3aceacd07fca3c85fd


Requires
--------
mmc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit)
    libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit)
    libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    octave
    octave-iso2mesh
    opencl-filesystem
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

octave-mmclab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit)
    libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit)
    libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    octave
    octave-iso2mesh
    opencl-filesystem
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

mmclab-demos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    octave
    octave-iso2mesh
    octave-mmclab

mmc-demos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    octave
    octave-iso2mesh

mmc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

mmc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
mmc:
    bundled(cjson)
    bundled(ssemath)
    mmc
    mmc(x86-64)

octave-mmclab:
    octave-mmclab
    octave-mmclab(x86-64)

mmclab-demos:
    mmclab-demos

mmc-demos:
    mmc-demos

mmc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    mmc-debuginfo
    mmc-debuginfo(x86-64)

mmc-debugsource:
    mmc-debugsource
    mmc-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1760617
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Python, Haskell, Ocaml,
fonts
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux