Bug 170954

Summary:	Review Request: f2py: Fortran to Python interface generator
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Ed Hill <ed>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-extras-list
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
URL:	http://cens.ioc.ee/projects/f2py2e
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2005-10-21 15:37:12 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:	163779

Description Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-16 05:29:25 UTC

Spec Name or Url: http://fedora.ivazquez.net/files/extras/f2py.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://fedora.ivazquez.net/files/extras/f2py-2.45.241_1926-1.src.rpm
Description: The purpose of the F2PY --Fortran to Python interface generator-- project is to provide connection between Python and Fortran languages. F2PY is a Python extension tool for creating Python C/API modules from (handwritten or F2PY generated) signature files (or directly from Fortran sources).

Comment 1 Ed Hill 2005-10-16 15:53:53 UTC

Hi Ignacio, the above SRPM builds on FC4 but rpmlint throws up a dozen errors 
of the form:

  E: f2py non-executable-script \
     /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/f2py2e/crackfortran.py 0644

If those files really should be executable (and I think they should be, 
right?) then could you please post an updated SRPM?

Comment 2 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-16 16:19:23 UTC

Strictly speaking files under /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages aren't required
to be executable. rpmlint is just keying on the shebang line and figuring
something is wrong from that. The 2 "devel-file-in-non-devel-package" messages
may also be red herrings but I need to look deeper into it.

Comment 3 Ed Hill 2005-10-20 16:13:59 UTC

Hi Ignacio, thanks for explaining why rpmlint is wrong.  So 
with that out of the way, the package looks good except for the two
"devel-file-in-non-devel-package" warnings are you mentioned:

 + spec looks good
 + code not content
 + source matches upstream
 + license is OK (and not included since it does not appear in 
    the upstream tarball -- good)
 + builds in mock on FC4 and appears to work correctly on FC4

I think its OK ship the package as-is.  And if you or someone else 
can point out a better location for the two fortranobject.[ch] files, 
then thats something that can be changed once its in CVS.

APPROVED.

Comment 4 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-21 15:37:12 UTC

Built for FC4 and devel.