Bug 1336552
| Summary: | Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christoph Junghans <junghans> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, tomspur |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | dominik:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14115052 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-10-09 02:47:33 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: | |||
|
Description
Christoph Junghans
2016-05-16 20:34:15 UTC
Ping Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is NOT present. - Release should start at '1'. - Please justify your strange naming convention (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming). I think better naming would be: exodus - main C library exodus-fortran - Fortran library exodus-devel - devel package s/exodus/exodusii/ would also be acceptable. - Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C library. - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it - SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the consumers of this package if it's updated with ABI changes. If upstream does have ABI versioning, please work with upstream on this as well. Just renaming the files to include the version in the name is not acceptable: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning - license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and nemesis/COPYRIGHT) - License: tag should be just BSD - the READMEs are also worth including as %doc - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a separate -doc subpackage: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf - CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them. - you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE - Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid group name - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel - %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial package". - Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from gentoo distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too. - There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also, ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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). [!]: 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. [!]: 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 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]: 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 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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libexoIIv2c , libexoIIv2for , exodusii-devel , exodusii-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libexoIIv2c-6.02-0.x86_64.rpm libexoIIv2for-6.02-0.x86_64.rpm exodusii-devel-6.02-0.x86_64.rpm exodusii-debuginfo-6.02-0.x86_64.rpm exodusii-6.02-0.src.rpm libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exodusII -> exodus Ii, exodus-ii, exodus libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Scientific/Math libexoIIv2c.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause libexoIIv2c.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 libexoIIv2c.so libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 exit.5 libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: no-documentation libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fortran -> FORTRAN, fort ran, fort-ran libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fortran -> FORTRAN, fort ran, fort-ran libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exodusII -> exodus Ii, exodus-ii, exodus libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Scientific/Math libexoIIv2for.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause libexoIIv2for.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 libexoIIv2for.so libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: no-documentation exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/C and C++ exodusii-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause exodusii.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing exodusii.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing exodusii.src: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Scientific/Math exodusii.src: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 27 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: exodusii-debuginfo-6.02-0.x86_64.rpm exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/C and C++ exodusii-devel.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag exodusii-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exodusII -> exodus Ii, exodus-ii, exodus libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Scientific/Math libexoIIv2c.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause libexoIIv2c.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 libexoIIv2c.so libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 /lib64/libhdf5.so.10 libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10 libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 /lib64/libz.so.1 libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c.so.6.02 exit.5 libexoIIv2c.x86_64: W: no-documentation libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fortran -> FORTRAN, fort ran, fort-ran libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing -> post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fortran -> FORTRAN, fort ran, fort-ran libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exodusII -> exodus Ii, exodus-ii, exodus libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Productivity/Scientific/Math libexoIIv2for.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause libexoIIv2for.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 libexoIIv2for.so libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11 libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 /lib64/libhdf5.so.10 libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10 libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for.so.6.02 /lib64/libz.so.1 libexoIIv2for.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 30 warnings. Requires -------- exodusii-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libexoIIv2c libexoIIv2c.so()(64bit) libexoIIv2for libexoIIv2for.so()(64bit) exodusii-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libexoIIv2c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libhdf5.so.10()(64bit) libhdf5_hl.so.10()(64bit) libnetcdf.so.11()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libexoIIv2for (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libexoIIv2c.so()(64bit) libhdf5.so.10()(64bit) libhdf5_hl.so.10()(64bit) libnetcdf.so.11()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- exodusii-devel: exodusii-devel exodusii-devel(x86-64) exodusii-debuginfo: exodusii-debuginfo exodusii-debuginfo(x86-64) libexoIIv2c: libexoIIv2c libexoIIv2c(x86-64) libexoIIv2c.so()(64bit) libexoIIv2for: libexoIIv2for libexoIIv2for(x86-64) libexoIIv2for.so()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://distfiles.gentoo.org/distfiles/exodus-6.02.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a3d7ae6ad433bb9655748c0e3e7a95e66c46d9df1e4c3d8d7e125af3fec89193 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a3d7ae6ad433bb9655748c0e3e7a95e66c46d9df1e4c3d8d7e125af3fec89193 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1336552 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2) > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is NOT present. Done > - Release should start at '1'. Done > - Please justify your strange naming convention Following Debian and OpenSuse! There was an exodus v1 and this is exodus v2, hence exodusII > - Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its > dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C > library. Combined > - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it Done > - SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the > consumers Added a patch from OpenSue to fix that. > - license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and > nemesis/COPYRIGHT) Done > - License: tag should be just BSD Done > - the READMEs are also worth including as %doc Done > - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a > separate -doc subpackage: > http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf > http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf I could do that > - CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE > are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them. Done > - you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE Done > - Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid > group name Done > - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel Done > - %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial > package". Done > - Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus > and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from > gentoo > distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too. seacas has a different API and the link to the tarball on the github page actaully not pointing to exodus, but back to seacas. > - There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present > to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set > LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also, Done > ===== MUST items ===== > [!]: 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. Done > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt DOne > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Done > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Done > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed Done > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Done ? > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Done > ===== SHOULD items ===== > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libexoIIv2c , libexoIIv2for , exodusii-devel , exodusii-debuginfo Done > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Done New SPRM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-1.fc24.src.rpm (In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #3) > (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2) > > - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a > > separate -doc subpackage: > > http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf > > http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf > I could do that Done After each change during review process, you should increase the Release: field, describe the changes in %changelog and post a new set of URLs for the spec file and the SRPM. That way, fedora-review can be run again on the new files. The spec file URL stays the same, but the SRPM should be different due to bumped Release field. (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #6) > The spec file URL stays the same, but the SRPM should be different due to > bumped Release field. Done New SPRM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-2.fc24.src.rpm Please post both spec and srpm URL each time you make a revision.
Issues found in current revision:
%install
[...]
cp %{S:1} %{S:2} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}
please use either cp -p or install -p here. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps)
Could you take a look at the test suite output? It's showing diffs, but there are apparently only whitespace differences because as far as I can tell all the numbers are the same.
Please fix this rpmlint warning:
exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
This is actually mandated by the guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package).
-doc subpackage should be noarch (BuildArch: noarch).
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so exit.5
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii
It looks like the libraries are linked to libhdf5 and libhdf5_hl unnecessarily. That is, they don't seem to reference any symbols from libhdf5*. Please verify and fix if necessary.
README is packaged twice (once in main package and second time in -doc).
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8) > Please post both spec and srpm URL each time you make a revision. See below > > Issues found in current revision: > > %install > [...] > cp %{S:1} %{S:2} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name} Done > Could you take a look at the test suite output? It's showing diffs, but > there are apparently only whitespace differences because as far as I can > tell all the numbers are the same. The lines just came out in the wrong order, but the results match, patch added > > Please fix this rpmlint warning: > > exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii Done > -doc subpackage should be noarch (BuildArch: noarch). Done > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1 > exodusii.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so > exit.5 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10 > exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1 > exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii > > It looks like the libraries are linked to libhdf5 and libhdf5_hl > unnecessarily. That is, they don't seem to reference any symbols from > libhdf5*. Please verify and fix if necessary. How did you get these warning? I ran rpmlint before, but didn't see these. Anyhow, they linked against libz and libhdf5 to support static libs, which we don't build. Fix that over-linking bug > README is packaged twice (once in main package and second time in -doc). Done Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/exodusii/exodusii.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-3.fc24.src.rpm I found another overlinking issue with fedora-review. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/exodusii/exodusii.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-4.fc24.src.rpm One more small issue:
The devel package should depend on the main package with %{_isa}, since it's archful. Only noarch packages can skip %{_isa}.
Requires: %{name}%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
You can fix this upon import.
Other than that, it looks like all issues are fixed. Good work! Package approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/exodusii exodusii-6.02-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ec60759ec exodusii-6.02-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ef86cfeae3 exodusii-6.02-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ec60759ec exodusii-6.02-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ef86cfeae3 exodusii-6.02-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. exodusii-6.02-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |