Bug 1250651
| Summary: | Review Request: python-compyte - A common set of compute primitives for PyCUDA and PyOpenCL | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | jonathan.underwood, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | jonathan.underwood:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-11-23 00:25:28 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1219819 | ||
|
Description
Igor Gnatenko
2015-08-05 16:47:47 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines I don't know what's causing this, it seems to be a problem with fedora-review though. ===== MUST items ===== 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. No license file is included with the package - please ask upstream to include one. Also it would be nice if the files themselves had license headers too to clarify the license on a per-file basis. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1250651-python- compyte/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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. [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. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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 see above. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-compyte , python3-compyte [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint The mock build and install does actually succeed - seems to be some issue with fedora-review. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins 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 ccache Mock Version: 1.2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jgu/Fedora/1250651-python-compyte/results/python2-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1250651-python-compyte/results/python3-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/jgu/Fedora/1250651-python-compyte/results/python2-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/jgu/Fedora/1250651-python-compyte/results/python3-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.noarch.rpm python-compyte-0.0.1-0.1.gitfb6ba11.fc24.src.rpm python2-compyte.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-compyte.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-compyte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi) python2-pytools python3-compyte (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-numpy python3-pytools Provides -------- python2-compyte: python-compyte python2-compyte python3-compyte: python3-compyte Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/inducer/compyte/archive/fb6ba114d9d906403d47b0aaf69e2fe4cef382f2.tar.gz#/python-compyte-fb6ba11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 756355a628474222a7a3619197dea64fdb056e19ca5a155062317cb873e8c633 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 756355a628474222a7a3619197dea64fdb056e19ca5a155062317cb873e8c633 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1250651 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Approved. I just realized this doesn't install any of the stuff under the ndarray subdirectory - any reason for that? (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #3) > I just realized this doesn't install any of the stuff under the ndarray > subdirectory - any reason for that? There are files to be compiled via nvcc which is cuda. We don't have it. License I will ask in upstream. Thanks for quick review. I will add scm request ASAP. About installation errors -- looks fedora-review bug. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-compyte Short Description: A common set of compute primitives for PyCUDA and PyOpenCL Upstream URL: https://github.com/inducer/compyte Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: Hi Igor - would it be possible for you to also build for F21? I am hoping to add pyopencl support in xpra for all release branches as soon as your pyopencl package is apprioved. (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #6) > Hi Igor - would it be possible for you to also build for F21? I am hoping to > add pyopencl support in xpra for all release branches as soon as your > pyopencl package is apprioved. 1. new python guidelines for f22+ 2. I don't want to support f21 at all Git done (by process-git-requests). Any progress here - have you pushed builds? If so, you should close this ticket. python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8ab3d87aec python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-cffade5d00 OK, so this should now be closed. python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-compyte' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8ab3d87aec python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-compyte' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-cffade5d00 python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. python-compyte-0.0.1-0.2.gitac1c71d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |