Bug 670541 (libxc)

Hi Jussi,

the package looks almost fine as far as I can see. Just a few things I noticed:

- %{?dist} is missing in the Release field

- the packaged source tarball differs from the upstream one:
  $ md5sum libxc-1.0.tar.gz*
  f9702268cf0015ada6a0ac34659971e6  libxc-1.0.tar.gz
  4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz.1

- maybe you want to use %{version} in Source0

- according to [1], %{_isa} must be added to Requires: gcc-gfortran

The directory %{_fmoddir} seems to be unowned. Unlike stated in [1], gcc-gfortran doesn't seem to own it. But maybe I'm missing something.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Fortran

Good catches. That teaches me (once again) not to use upstream specfiles as a starting point.

The gcc-gfortran stuff are bugs in the GCC packaging - the Fortran guidelines were approved, but the GCC guys haven't wanted to implement them.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc-1.0-2.fc14.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #2)
> The gcc-gfortran stuff are bugs in the GCC packaging - the Fortran guidelines
> were approved, but the GCC guys haven't wanted to implement them.

Ah OK, thanks for the clarification.

What do you think about the following still unaddressed items?

- the packaged source tarball differs from the upstream one:
  $ md5sum libxc-1.0.tar.gz*
  f9702268cf0015ada6a0ac34659971e6  libxc-1.0.tar.gz
  4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz.1

- according to [1], %{_isa} must be added to Requires: gcc-gfortran

(In reply to comment #3)
> - the packaged source tarball differs from the upstream one:
>   $ md5sum libxc-1.0.tar.gz*
>   f9702268cf0015ada6a0ac34659971e6  libxc-1.0.tar.gz
>   4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz.1

/me fails. I ran spectool -g but forgot to move the tarball to the SOURCES directory. *Now* it is fixed.

> - according to [1], %{_isa} must be added to Requires: gcc-gfortran

Yes, I wrote the guideline proposal :)
I had some reason not to place the %{_isa}, but according to my test it seems to work fine on current Fedoras. On EPEL, however, it doesn't work since the 32-bit gcc-gfortran is not available.


Let's hope I got everything now :D

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc-1.0-3.fc14.src.rpm

Thanks for the information and the fixes. The package is almost ready now. As you mentioned you want to build it for EPEL too (and as a BuildRoot field and a %clean section are present), you should also clean the buildroot at the beginning of %install. Everything else looks fine.


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
libxc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functionals -> functional, functional s, functionary
libxc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional, functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functionals -> functional, functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional, functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxc.so.0.0.9 exit.5
libxc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional, functional s, functionary
libxc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

All above warnings can be ignored:
- spelling errors are false positive
- call of exit() should be fixed upstream, no blocker here
- no docs in devel is expected

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - LGPLv3+

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum libxc-1.0.tar.gz*
    4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz
    4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
    koji scratch build (f15):
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738376

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[X] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

Again, I blame the crappy upstream template I used. The ape specfile (bug #670558) I wrote myself, so at least that should be cleaner.

Sorry for making you work this hard, although the missing cleaning of buildroot is not a blocker per se..

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/libxc-1.0-4.fc14.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #6)
> The ape specfile (bug
> #670558) I wrote myself, so at least that should be cleaner.

OK, looks good at first glance. If my time permits, I will have a deeper look at it in the next few days.


> Sorry for making you work this hard, although the missing cleaning of buildroot
> is not a blocker per se..

That's all right. I know I'm a bit nit-picking sometimes even on non-blocking items. :)


----------------
Package APPROVED 
----------------

It's good to see that you have your standards :)

Thanks for the review! If you have any packages waiting for a reviewer, just holler...

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libxc
Short Description: Library of exchange and correlation functionals to be used in DFT codes
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: F-13 F-14 EL-5 EL-6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libxc-1.0-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-1.0-4.el5

libxc-1.0-4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-1.0-4.fc14

libxc-1.0-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-1.0-4.fc13

libxc-1.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-1.0-4.el6

libxc-1.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libxc'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-1.0-4.el6

libxc-1.0-4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libxc-1.0-4.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libxc-1.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

libxc-1.0-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libxc
New Branches: epel7
Owners: jussilehtola

Git done (by process-git-requests).

libxc-2.1.0-4.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libxc-2.1.0-4.el7

libxc-2.1.0-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.