Bug 1315021 (openvibe)
| Summary: | Review Request: openvibe - A software platform for brain-computer interfaces | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dmitry Mikhirev <mikhirev> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zbyszek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zbyszek:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-03 20:50:09 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: | 1311752 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1276941 | ||
|
Description
Dmitry Mikhirev
2016-03-05 18:55:41 UTC
Can you make vrpn mandatory? I'll review vrpn, and conditionals make everything more complicated. Sure, I'll make it mandatory after vrpn will be approved. Or should I do this right now? Right now. Unless you think there's some reason to think that vrpn might not be approved. Looks like a well done package, so I wouldn't think so. Done. Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/openvibe.git/plain/openvibe.spec?id=b06cc7b6c8f3a95f0f0ea43fd151353b8b7432a6 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00165984-openvibe/openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Change python-devel to python2-devel, or maybe python3-devel? Would it work with python3? There should be an appdata file [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData]. Note: if you package for F23- (F24+ is fine as is), you'll need to add scriptlets for the desktop files [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database]. > Change python-devel to python2-devel, or maybe python3-devel? Would it work with python3? It wants python 2.7 only. Changed to python2-devel. > Note: if you package for F23- (F24+ is fine as is), you'll need to add scriptlets for the desktop files Added. > There should be an appdata file Well, "should" is not "must", right? ☺ Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/openvibe.git/plain/openvibe.spec?id=c3df616e09207a638e8665db14d637b2a0e13e86 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00166419-openvibe/openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm It's "SHOULD" not "should" ;) It means "must unless there's a good reason not to". Is not XML a good enough reason? Okay... Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/bizdelnick/neuro/openvibe.git/tree/openvibe.spec?id=d5c039183317e046b118cf503fe19b7dc52c68c0 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/bizdelnick/neuro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00166686-openvibe/openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Please always link to the raw spec file for fedora-review's sake. + latest version + license is acceptable (AGPLv3) + license file is present, %license is used + scriptlets look OK - provides/requires are not OK (see below) + builds and installs OK No %check (apart from the desktop files and appdata) :( Use appstream-util validate-relax --nonet, otherwise it fails in mock. Installation fails with: nothing provides libquat.so.07()(64bit) needed by openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64. > Please always link to the raw spec file for fedora-review's sake. I'm sorry. > No %check (apart from the desktop files and appdata) :( I did not add running tests because they require X server connection. I supposed that there should be a workaround, but I found the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/GraphicalTests only after submitting this review request. So I can try to enable tests now. > Use appstream-util validate-relax --nonet, otherwise it fails in mock. OK. > Installation fails with: > nothing provides libquat.so.07()(64bit) needed by openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64. Right, it is provided by vrpn package. (In reply to Dmitry Mikhirev from comment #10) > > Please always link to the raw spec file for fedora-review's sake. > I'm sorry. Not a big problem, just an additional step. > > No %check (apart from the desktop files and appdata) :( > I did not add running tests because they require X server connection. I > supposed that there should be a workaround, but I found the page > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/GraphicalTests only after > submitting this review request. So I can try to enable tests now. I think it's useful. At least checking if the binaries actually run can be useful: $ /usr/bin/openvibe-external-application-launcher /usr/bin/openvibe-external-application-launcher: line 24: /usr/bin/: Is a directory It seems that something is wrong here. > > Installation fails with: > > nothing provides libquat.so.07()(64bit) needed by openvibe-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64. > Right, it is provided by vrpn package. Oh, OK. I didn't notice that. With vrpn installed everything installs fine. Package is APPROVED. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/openvibe This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions |