Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: biomaj-1.1.0 - BioMAJ is a workflow engine dedicated to data synchronization and processing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Summary: Review Request: biomaj-1.1.0 - BioMAJ is a workflow engine dedicated to data synchronization and processing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: olivier.sallou@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://osallou.genouest.org/biomaj/biomaj.spec SRPM URL: http://osallou.genouest.org/biomaj/biomaj-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This is a first upload of the Biomaj package on Fedora and I search for a sponsor to do so.
BioMAJ downloads remote data banks check their status and apply transformation workflows, with consistent state,to provide ready-to-use data to biologists and bioinformaticians. For example, it can transform original fasta files to blast indexes. It is very flexible and post-processes can be extended very easily.
BioMAJ is already packaged on Debian.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pingou@pingoured.fr Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-07-22 04:18:05 EDT --- I happen to be bioinformaticien, french and sponsor, so let's have a look.
First comments at first glance: * Please split the lines in your spec. It doesn't fit in my 19" screen. We normally don't make line longer than 80 characters * Use %global instead of %define: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_... * Why do you redefine %{name}, %{version} ? (first lines) * I would prefer to see a direct link to upstream's sources. They want to see who is using their tool, but they won't be able to with the tool in debian or Fedora. So as soon as they accept to have their tool packaged, this "registration" system is rather pointless. * this is associated with the invalid source0 that rpmlint shows * your %clean section looks strange to me * Some comments in %file are not necessary anymore * on %prep, you might want to use pushd and popd rather then cd ../../....
The full output from rpmlint on all the rpm: $ rpmlint biomaj-1.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm biomaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads biomaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bioinformaticians -> transformations biomaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fasta -> fasts, fast, pasta biomaj.src: W: invalid-license BSD with attribution biomaj.src: W: strange-permission Deb2Fedora.sh 0755L biomaj.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{name} biomaj.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{name} biomaj.src:24: W: macro-in-comment %{version} biomaj.src:74: W: macro-in-comment %__cp biomaj.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{nonConfigFiles} biomaj.src:105: W: macro-in-comment %dir biomaj.src:106: W: macro-in-comment %dir biomaj.src:107: W: macro-in-comment %dir biomaj.src:108: W: macro-in-comment %dir biomaj.src: W: invalid-url Source0: /biomaj-1.1.0.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/pierrey/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/biomaj-1.1.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm biomaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bioinformaticians -> transformations biomaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fasta -> fasts, fast, pasta biomaj.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD with attribution biomaj.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/biomaj/lib/vendor/commons-cli2/src/test/data/.hidden.txt biomaj.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/biomaj biomaj.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/biomaj/lib/biomaj.jar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
I believe some can be fixed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #2 from osallou olivier.sallou@gmail.com 2011-07-22 05:18:53 EDT --- I have updated spec and source according to remarks. Files are updated on remote site (same url) All warning are not removed, cause some are software intrisic or spelling unknown....
For Source, upstream archive is not named according expected format. I cannot really change this, (quite a mess to maintain different source package for different distributions). So I define, as proposed in Fedora policy, the file name. URL to use and script to apply are defined in comments and Source1
Thanks for review
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #3 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-07-22 05:42:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
I have updated spec and source according to remarks. Files are updated on remote site (same url)
We normally update the %changelog to reflect the changes made to the spec file.
For Source, upstream archive is not named according expected format. I cannot really change this, (quite a mess to maintain different source package for different distributions). So I define, as proposed in Fedora policy, the file name. URL to use and script to apply are defined in comments and Source1
Could you elaborate on this ? What is the format ? You don't have to maintain source package for each distro, just one with the correct installer (ant/pom/setup.py/makefile/install.sh), then it is up to the packager.
Also, looking at the sources quickly, you seem to embed apache-commons-cli instead of using the one on the system. This is not allowed (bundle library).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #4 from osallou olivier.sallou@gmail.com 2011-07-22 06:05:00 EDT --- Hi, for changelog, I though that changes were made only after first upload.
For source, the source on our server is named biomaj_1.1.0.orig.tar.gz, and unzipped directory is named biomaj_1.1.0. In SPEC , it expects biomaj-1.1.0 (dash, not underscore): when building rpm it takes the source file, unzip it and goes to biomaj-1.1.0, so it fails. So I have to rename directory to biomaj-1.1.0 using Def2Fedora script.
At least, regarding commons-cli, this is not exact. We embed commons-cli2 which is not packaged (and will never be as project is orphan). Future version will remove this dependency to use commons-cli from system.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #5 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-07-22 06:12:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
Hi, for changelog, I though that changes were made only after first upload.
All the changes on the spec :)
For source, the source on our server is named biomaj_1.1.0.orig.tar.gz, and unzipped directory is named biomaj_1.1.0. In SPEC , it expects biomaj-1.1.0 (dash, not underscore): when building rpm it takes the source file, unzip it and goes to biomaj-1.1.0, so it fails. So I have to rename directory to biomaj-1.1.0 using Def2Fedora script.
This is not a problem, just use %prep -n %{name}_%{version} and you are done.
At least, regarding commons-cli, this is not exact. We embed commons-cli2 which is not packaged (and will never be as project is orphan). Future version will remove this dependency to use commons-cli from system.
I am not sure it is possible/acceptable.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #6 from osallou olivier.sallou@gmail.com 2011-07-22 06:53:08 EDT --- Hi, I have updated code on web site (with changelog). I fixed the Source issue help with your command to avoid Deb2Fedora stuff.
regarding commons-cli2, this is what we do on Debian. The apache-commons-cli2 is Apache2 license, and can as such be delivered with the code. It is used as an internal library, with original source code. The library is built with the rest of the code at package built.
Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #7 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-07-22 07:05:47 EDT --- The changelog format is wrong. You need to increase the release and make a proper entry in the changelog.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #8 from osallou olivier.sallou@gmail.com 2011-07-22 07:14:16 EDT --- updated to release 2 with according src.rpm. (with spec file)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-07-22 07:16:17 EDT --- In Fedora we are more strict about bundling libraries - in short it's forbidden unless you receive an exception from FPC (Fedora Packaging Committee). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries for details and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries for details. Bundling libraries is doing so much harm that it should be really forbidden without exceptions if you ask me. If you intend to remove the bundled library and to use the system one please do it sooner.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #10 from osallou olivier.sallou@gmail.com 2011-07-22 07:36:19 EDT --- So I will wait for next release of the software. I cannot simply fix current version to so. Can I keep this request open in the meanwhile and ping again once new release is available?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #11 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-07-22 07:44:14 EDT --- Of course, no problem :)
In the mean while, normally to become fedora packager we ask a candidate to show their understanding of the guidelines. The easiest way to do that is to perform some un-official review (since you are not a packager, you cannot approve a package) and eventually submit another review request.
Please mention on this ticket which bugs you have reviewed and if you submit another review request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |NotReady
--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- So, it's been nearly another year. Since this still isn't ready for review I'm going to mark it as such; please clear the whiteboard if you provide something you'd like to have reviewed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: biomaj - A |biomaj-1.1.0 - BioMAJ is a |workflow engine dedicated |workflow engine dedicated |to data synchronization and |to data synchronization and |processing |processing |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- As two more years passed. Is there any planned action or it's dead review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |msuchy@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed| |2015-07-21 09:15:17
--- Comment #14 from Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com --- Closing due long inactivity. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724883
Miroslav Suchý msuchy@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org