Bug 1431445
| Summary: | Review Request: avogadro2-libs - Avogadro2 libraries | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Antonio T. (sagitter) <anto.trande> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | 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: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-04-21 14:27:22 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| 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: | 1431443, 1431444 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 1431448 | ||
|
Description
Antonio T. (sagitter)
2017-03-12 15:55:51 UTC
%setup -q -n avogadrolibs-%{version}
%patch0 -p0
...
→
%autosetup -n avogadrolibs-%{version}
Why not use VTK? It's packaged and works quite well in Fedora...
Can you explain how License is calculated? I only see a single COPYING file with 3-clause BSD.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > %setup -q -n avogadrolibs-%{version} > %patch0 -p0 > ... > → > %autosetup -n avogadrolibs-%{version} > > Why not use VTK? It's packaged and works quite well in Fedora... It is not compatible with vtk-7.1.0 yet. https://github.com/OpenChemistry/avogadrolibs/issues/174 > > Can you explain how License is calculated? I only see a single COPYING file > with 3-clause BSD. MIT is the license of 'jsoncpp.a' file. This information (both pieces) should be added as comments in the spec file. The description of licensing breakdown is required by the guidelines [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios]. + license is acceptable (MIT, BSD 3-clause) + license is specified correctly, but see note above + package name is OK (upstream uses 'avogadrolibs', but avogadro2-libs matches better with avogadro2, so it's better) + builds and installs OK + fedora-review has no complaints + jsoncpp.a: Provides: jsoncpp-static is declared, the library is in a private directory + P/R/BR look correct - scriptlets are missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_libraries rpmlint: avogadro2-libs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bioinformatics -> misinformation, information avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bioinformatics -> misinformation, information Bogus. avogadro2-libs.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsoncpp-static Please provide the version (e.g. " = XXXXYYZZ") if possible. avogadro2-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libAvogadroIO.so libAvogadroIO.so ... avogadro2-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libAvogadroQtPlugins.so libAvogadroQtPlugins.so I *think* that's OK. avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libAvogadroQtPlugins.so exit.5 Dunno. avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/avogadro2/staticplugins/Spectra.a ... avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/avogadro2/staticplugins/NetworkDatabases.a avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/avogadro2/libjsoncpp.a Those are plugins, so OK. avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id avogadro2-libs.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id Known bug in rpmlint [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo]. avogadro2-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib avogadro2-libs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OK. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 46 warnings. Package is APPROVED. Please add the two comments and version tag (if possible) and scriptlets when uploading. Thank you. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/avogadro2/avogadro2-libs.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/avogadro2/fedora-rawhide-i386/00526014-avogadro2-libs/avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc27.src.rpm Yep, looks all good. Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/avogadro2-libs avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2a7d940435 avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-dd92aa1f78 avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.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-2017-2a7d940435 avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-dd92aa1f78 avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. avogadro2-libs-1.90.0-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |