https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441

--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- - Don't use both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, only one. - --disable-rpath options is unrecognized - Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included. - /usr/share/app-defaults is created but not owned by this package. - This package uses libtiff bundled files (include/TIFF) already package in Fedora. Please, patch the source code to use system libtiff if possible.

#rm -rf include/TIFF #rm -rf src/lib/TIFF #src/lib/OS

Are there are problems with system libtiff?

- Why make parallel macro is not used? (leave a comment)

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

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

Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: iv-static : /usr/lib64/libIVhines.la iv-static : /usr/lib64/libUnidrawhines.la See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

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

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

Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [?]: 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 667 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1150441-iv/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/app-defaults [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/app-defaults [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [!]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: iv-3.2b.hines18-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm iv-devel-3.2b.hines18-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm iv-static-3.2b.hines18-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm iv-3.2b.hines18-1.fc22.src.rpm iv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s iv.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIVhines.so.3.0.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iclass iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idemo iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idraw iv-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib iv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation iv-static.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib iv-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation iv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s iv.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version} iv.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} iv.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint iv-devel iv-static iv iv-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib iv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation iv-static.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib iv-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation ... A lot of undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings ... iv.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIVhines.so.3.0.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iclass iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idemo iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idraw 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 566 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- iv-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iv(x86-64) libIVhines.so.3()(64bit) libUnidrawhines.so.3()(64bit)

iv-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): iv(x86-64)

iv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libIVhines.so.3()(64bit) libUnidrawhines.so.3()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides -------- iv-devel: iv-devel iv-devel(x86-64)

iv-static: iv-static iv-static(x86-64) libtool(/usr/lib64/libIVhines.la) libtool(/usr/lib64/libUnidrawhines.la)

iv: iv iv(x86-64) libIVhines.so.3()(64bit) libUnidrawhines.so.3()(64bit)

Source checksums ---------------- http://www.neuron.yale.edu/ftp/neuron/versions/v7.3/iv-18.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a875692a20211e0856e9e283ab9ef5da022b4d49853aa7f2f734104f399e7af1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a875692a20211e0856e9e283ab9ef5da022b4d49853aa7f2f734104f399e7af1

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1150441 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1249094

--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1249096 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249094 [Bug 1249094] Review Request: nrn - A flexible and powerful simulator of neurons and networks

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441

Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|anto.trande@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Whiteboard| |AwaitingSubmitter Flags|fedora-review? |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2017-12-17 09:14:53

--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Lots of changes, dropping it for the time being.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter |NOTREADY Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- WIP, Working on it now.