[Bug 2310391] Review Request: multicharge - Electronegativity equilibration model for atomic partial charges

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310391

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
I can't spot any issues so here is my formal

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

^^^ false positive

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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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 (ASL
2.0).
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package owns all directories that it creates.
[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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[x]: 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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[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]: Package installs properly.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 4127 bytes in 1 files.
[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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (0.3.0).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish
     signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          multicharge-devel-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          multicharge-debuginfo-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          multicharge-debugsource-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          multicharge-0.3.0-3.fc42.src.rpm
=======================================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
======================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpibziy51v')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US)
Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US)
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l en_US
Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.src: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US)
Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US)
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l
en_US Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
=================================================================================================
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 8
badness; has taken 1.9 s
=================================================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: multicharge-debuginfo-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.rpm
=======================================================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
======================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpopzt7dip')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

=================================================================================================
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.6 s
=================================================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 4

multicharge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/multicharge
/lib64/libm.so.6
multicharge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/multicharge
/lib64/libgcc_s.so.1


^^^ This is likely a false positive.

multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', 'Summary(en_US)
Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', 'Summary(en_US)
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Electronegativity', '%description -l
en_US Electronegativity -> Electromagnetically')
multicharge.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('equilibration', '%description -l en_US
equilibration -> liberation')
multicharge-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 36 filtered, 4
badness; has taken 2.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/grimme-lab/multicharge/archive/v0.3.0/multicharge-0.3.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
2fcc1f80871f404f005e9db458ffaec95bb28a19516a0245278cd3175b63a6b2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2fcc1f80871f404f005e9db458ffaec95bb28a19516a0245278cd3175b63a6b2


Requires
--------
multicharge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libflexiblas64.so.3()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1(GOMP_5.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmctc-lib.so.0()(64bit)
    libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

multicharge-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit)
    multicharge(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(mctc-lib)

multicharge-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

multicharge-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
multicharge:
    libmulticharge.so.0()(64bit)
    multicharge
    multicharge(x86-64)

multicharge-devel:
    multicharge-devel
    multicharge-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(multicharge)

multicharge-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libmulticharge.so.0.3.0-0.3.0-3.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    multicharge-debuginfo
    multicharge-debuginfo(x86-64)

multicharge-debugsource:
    multicharge-debugsource
    multicharge-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2310391
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, SugarActivity, Perl,
Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


This package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================


-- 
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310391

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202310391%23c11

-- 
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




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

  Powered by Linux