Bug 693158
Summary: | Review Request: python-viper - A minimalistic scientific plotter and run-time visualization module | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Fabian Affolter <mail> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, jonathan.underwood, mario.blaettermann, notting, volker27 |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-10-05 20:25:17 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: | 201449, 821727 |
Description
Fabian Affolter
2011-04-03 08:50:42 UTC
"run--time" -- I think that should be "run-time". What is "dolfin"? (defattr is not required.) (In reply to comment #1) > "run--time" -- I think that should be "run-time". fixed > What is "dolfin"? DOLFIN is the C++/Python interface of FEniCS. > (defattr is not required.) removed * Sun Mar 04 2012 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 1.0.0-1 - Updated to latest upstream version Updates files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-viper.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-viper-1.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm The license seems to be LGPLv3+. You might rather want to include COPYING.LESSER therefore as well. Please remove the buildroot definition. You must require vtk-python -- not vtk: src/viper/viper.py: from vtk.wx.wxVTKRenderWindow import wxVTKRenderWindow The demo files are contained in the main and the demo package. Any news, Fabian? Regarding Volker's point about the demo directory, you can add this to the main package %files section to fix that: %exclude %{python_sitelib}/%{srcname}/demo However, I really wonder if it's worth splitting off the demo files into a sub-package - there's really not many of them - is it worth the yum metadat bloat of an extra package? I note that your review request for python-ufl doesn't split out the demo files for that package. For consistency, and given the small number of demo files, I would recommend not having a separate -demo sub-package. Oh: actually I do now see your thinking behind the separate -demo sub-package - the demos require dolfin which is not yet available in the repos. My feeling is that you could still merge the demo files into the main package, and drop the dolfin require until dolfin becomes available in the repos. [Aside: I am presently working through getting all of Fenics packaged for RHEL6 and your packages are a great start - drop me a mail if you're interested in collaborating on dolfin and ufc. I plan to get them all into the Fedora and EPEL repos eventually.] @Fabian, you didn't response to this review request for some months. Are you still interested in to work on this package? Otherwise, this request should be closed as FE-DEADREVIEW. Please don't close this review as FE-DEADREVIEW. I am working to get the FeNICS stack into Fedora/EPEL, so if Fabian doesn't respond, then change the submitter to me and I'll continue to work on the package. (In reply to comment #8) > ... then change the submitter to me and I'll continue to work on the package. As far as I know, the submitter of a review request cannot be changed. If you want to pick up this package, file a new review request and mark the old one as a duplicate. One month later, nothing has happened... I'll close this now as FF-DEADREVIEW. @Jonathan, feel free to reuse the existing stuff, as long as it stays available from Fabian's webspace. As I already wrote, the submitter of a review request cannot be changed. Open a new one and mark this one as a duplicate. Thanks for the pointless bureaucracy Mario. Seriously, this was unnecessary - I have seen plenty of review requests where the final submitter/owner was not the original one. Now, I will need to create a new bug report for a new review, and a reviewer will need to re-read through this one for Volker's comments. Honestly, with a volunteer contributed project like this, putting needless extra work in really isn't helpful. As well as needing to open a new bug, this has messed up the tracker bug for FENICS. Thanks a bunch. (In reply to comment #11) > - I have seen plenty of review requests where the final submitter/owner was > not the original one. Never seen such review requests, although I'm doing reviews for some years. However, if you know about a convenient way to use this request for yourselves, feel free to reopen it. Thanks again for the unhelpfullness and extra work Mario. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 903285 *** |