Bug 1470436 (review-astrometry)
Summary: | Review Request: astrometry - Blind astrometric calibration of arbitrary astronomical images | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christian Dersch <lupinix.fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | mattia.verga, package-review, zebob.m |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | zebob.m:
fedora-review+
|
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: | 2017-09-30 06:25:29 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: | 1159999, 1470470 |
Description
Christian Dersch
2017-07-13 00:36:24 UTC
NotReady means: Have to check the licensing in detail as there is also some GPL code. Licensing checked and updated, ready now. Koji scratch build (rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20484428 As a reference: Debian package where patches were taken from: https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/astrometry.net Note that fedora-review will complain about the should item "[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro." The handwritten Makefile from upstream does not support parallel build very well and we get build issues then. Thanks for your effort in continuing the process of importing astrometry.net into Fedora. I have no free time at the moment to follow a full review, but here are my 2 cents: - I think would be better asking upstream to rename the conflicting executable and also some other executables that have too common name and can become a problem in future. Renaming the executable only here in Fedora can cause confusion and I think this should be the last chance. - Patches should be reported upstream https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines and the fact we are not the only distro using them should make the developer more open to accept them upstream. Everything seems good, package accepted. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: 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. 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "Public domain GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v2)". 751 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/astrometry/review- astrometry/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [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). [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-astrometry , astrometry-debuginfo [?]: 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. [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. [x]: %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]: 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: astrometry-0.72-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm astrometry-devel-0.72-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python2-astrometry-0.72-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm astrometry-debuginfo-0.72-0.1.fc28.x86_64.rpm astrometry-0.72-0.1.fc28.src.rpm astrometry.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) astrometric -> barometric, astronomic, asymmetric astrometry.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US convertion -> conversion, convention, convection astrometry.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id astrometry.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary astrometry-tablist astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary astrometry-tabmerge astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary degtohms astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fits-column-merge astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fitscopy astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fitsverify astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hmstodeg astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary image2pnm astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imarith astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imcopy astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary imstat astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary listhead astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary liststruc astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary merge-columns astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modhead astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary removelines astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary startree astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary text2fits astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uniformize astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary votabletofits astrometry-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib astrometry-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python2-astrometry.x86_64: W: no-documentation python2-astrometry.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python2-astrometry.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id python2-astrometry.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plotann.py astrometry.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) astrometric -> barometric, astronomic, asymmetric astrometry.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US convertion -> conversion, convention, convection astrometry.src: W: strange-permission astrometry-generate-tarball.sh 755 astrometry.src: W: invalid-url Source0: astrometry.net-0.72-clean.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 34 warnings. Thank you very much! (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/astrometry astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc25 astrometry-0.72-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b241075778 astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc26 astrometry-0.72-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4be93a69b1 astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc27 astrometry-0.72-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-37cbeee31d astrometry-0.72-1.fc27, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-37cbeee31d astrometry-0.72-1.fc26, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.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-2017-4be93a69b1 astrometry-0.72-1.fc25, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.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-b241075778 astrometry-0.72-1.fc25, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. astrometry-0.72-1.fc26, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. astrometry-0.72-2.fc27 astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-37cbeee31d astrometry-0.72-2.fc27, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-37cbeee31d astrometry-0.72-2.fc27, astrometry-tycho2-1.1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |