Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|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>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2005-10-21 11:37:12 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2005-10-16 01:29:25 EDT
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 11:53:53 EDT
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 12:19:23 EDT
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 12:13:59 EDT
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 11:37:12 EDT
Built for FC4 and devel.