https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098754

Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dev@der-flo.net

--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net --- This is an *INFORMAL* package-review.

Due to some issues I wouldn't APPROVE so far.

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

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

Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python-brian : /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 7270400 bytes in 707 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - For the Buildrequire 'numpy' please refer to https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591745

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

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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. ---> it would be great, if all sourcefiles would include a note about the license. For example: brian-1.4.1/brian/(base.py||group.py) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> on May 17 2014 something happend [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> Please replace the hard coded paths with macros from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6907480 [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> there are some issues. Please fix them first. [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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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. [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. [!]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ---> for more information on packaging a python-Package see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptool... [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> egg-File is missing [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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. ---> please ask upstream to add a separate file for license text [x]: 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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 7628800 bytes in /usr/share [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: python-brian-1.4.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm python-brian-1.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm python-brian.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue_wrap.cxx python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue.h python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue.cpp python-brian.src: W: invalid-url Source1: brian-1.4.1-extras.zip python-brian.src: W: invalid-url Source0: brian-1.4.1.tar.gz python-brian.src: W: uncompressed-zip brian-1.4.1-extras.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-brian python-brian.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue_wrap.cxx python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue.h python-brian.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/experimental/cspikequeue/spikequeue.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- python-brian (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) numpy python(abi) python-matplotlib rtld(GNU_HASH) scipy sympy

Provides -------- python-brian: python-brian python-brian(x86-64)

Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-brian: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/utils/ccircular/_ccircular.so python-brian: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/brian/utils/fastexp/_fastexp.so

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1098754 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098754

--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Bjorn,

Thank you for taking over the review. I'll update the package with corrections from the informal review and post updated packages ASAP.

Thanks, Ankur

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098754

--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- meh. They released a new version - pybrian2 - and it's still in beta. I'll update the package. Probably needs a rename to differentiate it from the legacy pybrian too.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098754

--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- I've got test builds here:

https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/ankursinha/neuroscience-research/build/...