Bug 188482

Hi Neal, the two URLs return "404 Not Found" for me.  Is this submission
active?

These should work:

http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy.spec
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy-0.4.8-1.src.rpm

Hi Neal, this isn't a full review, just a few quick observations:

 - Is this your first package?  If so, we'll add FE-NEEDSPONSOR per:
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
 - incorrect BuildRoot:
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
 - please either make Source0 a full URL or indicate (with some 
     comments in the spec file) how one can generate the tar-ball 
     from, for instance, the upstream CVS [this is so we can more 
     easily verify that source matches upstream] 
 - please remove Prefix and Vendor
 - please add a changelog
 - please consider changing %defattr(-,root,root) to 
     %defattr(-,root,root,-)

You might want to take a look at the review guidelines:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

and build your rpm in mock ("yum install mock") and run your generated 
RPM through rpmlint ("yum install rpmlint") to see if you might find any 
other items -- it could make the job easier easier for reviewers!

OK, I have uploaded scipy-0.4.8-2.  I have tried to address the comments.

I did not use mach, because the setup looks a bit involved.  I did try to 
supply requires and buildrequires manually.

I did run rpmlint.  There are some complaints, but I think they are ignorable.

I removed d1mach patch.  If you have the latest FC5 gcc I think the bug has 
been fixed.  Is it safe to assume nobody will try to use older gcc?

http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy.spec
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy-0.4.8-2.src.rpm

Hi Neal, heres a few more comments (not a thorough review):

good:
 + license is OK: its BSD-w/o-advertise-clause
 + source matches upstream

needswork:
 - missing license file (please add "%doc LICENSE.txt")
 - missing "BuildRequires: numpy"
 - please use "%setup -q"

Also, *please* build your package locally in mock.  The commands are:

 1) yum install mock
 2) add yourself to the mock group (vi /etc/group)
 3) log out/in for group addition to take full effect
 4) run "mock -r fedora-5-i386-core scipy-0.4.8-2.src.rpm"

and it will help you identify problems.  Its a very good idea since 
mock is what the buildsystem itself uses.

I believe I have done all that was requested.  Updated srpm is here
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy-0.4.8-3.src.rpm

Sorry make that:
http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/scipy-0.4.8-4.src.rpm

Mass-block FE-NEEDSPONSOR for the six review requests¹ of Neal Becker. Neal, 
when you get sponsorship, you will have to unblock it for all your requests.

¹) Actually the four that do not block yet FE-NEEDSPONSOR.

Hi Neal, this is still not a complete review but we have at this point 
covered a number of the review items.

good:
 + builds in mock on FC5 i386
 + dir ownership appears to be OK
 + permissions look OK

needswork:
 - rpmlint returns 168 errors/warnings of which 167 are:

     126 are devel-file-in-non-devel-package
     39  are non-executable-script
     2   are script-without-shellbang

   and these can probably be safely ignored.  The one remaining 
   warning is:

       W: scipy summary-ended-with-dot Scipy: array processing 
          for numbers, strings, records, and objects.

   and you can easily fix it.

questions:
 1) There are a number of files in directories of the form 
      %{python_sitearch}/scipy/*/tests/*
    and
      %{python_sitearch}/scipy/*/examples/* 
    Perhaps they should go in sub-packages such as scipy-test and 
    scipy-docs or similar?  Whats your opinion of putting them in 
    sub-packages?
 2) What is your sponsorship status?  Are any of the other packages 
    you submitted closer to passing review?  I'm just a little leery 
    about sponsoring you since I'm not familiar with any of the other 
    packages and just don't have enough free time to learn about them.