Bug 1150441 - Review Request: iv - NEURON graphical interface
Summary: Review Request: iv - NEURON graphical interface
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Whiteboard: NOTREADY
: 1249096 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 1249094
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-10-08 10:26 UTC by Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
Modified: 2019-01-02 11:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2017-12-17 14:14:53 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2014-10-08 10:26:12 UTC
Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/iv/iv.spec

SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/iv/iv-3.2b.hines18-1.fc21.src.rpm


InterViews is a native C++ toolkit for X Windows developed by Mark Linton and
his team at Stanford University and later Silicon Graphics. The last major
release was InterViews 3.1 in 1993, and included the Unidraw drawing editor
application framework which was the basis of John Vlissides' thesis work at
Stanford. InterViews also has lightweight glyphs with switchable look-and-feel
(Apple monochrome, Motif, OpenLook, and SGI Motif). It has been ported to most
any Unix which runs X11. Other programmers known to have worked on InterViews
include Paul Calder, John Interrante, Steven Tang, and Scott Stanton. 

Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha

Comment 1 Antonio 2014-11-11 13:46:06 UTC
- Don't use both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, only one.
- --disable-rpath options is unrecognized
- Libtool archives, foo.la files, should not be included.
- /usr/share/app-defaults is created but not owned by this package.
- This package uses libtiff bundled files (include/TIFF) already package in Fedora. Please, patch the source code to use system libtiff if possible.

#rm -rf include/TIFF
#rm -rf src/lib/TIFF #src/lib/OS

Are there are problems with system libtiff?

- Why make parallel macro is not used? (leave a comment) 

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
  Note: iv-static : /usr/lib64/libIVhines.la iv-static :
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[?]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
     "Unknown or generated". 667 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1150441-iv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/app-defaults
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/app-defaults
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
     Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: iv-3.2b.hines18-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
iv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s
iv.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIVhines.so.3.0.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iclass
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idemo
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idraw
iv-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
iv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
iv-static.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
iv-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
iv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US glyphs -> glyph, glyph s
iv.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
iv.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
iv.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint iv-devel iv-static iv
iv-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
iv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
iv-static.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
iv-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
A lot of undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings
iv.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIVhines.so.3.0.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iclass
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idemo
iv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary idraw
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 566 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

iv-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

iv-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

iv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):




Source checksums
http://www.neuron.yale.edu/ftp/neuron/versions/v7.3/iv-18.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a875692a20211e0856e9e283ab9ef5da022b4d49853aa7f2f734104f399e7af1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a875692a20211e0856e9e283ab9ef5da022b4d49853aa7f2f734104f399e7af1

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1150441
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 2 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2015-08-02 11:02:18 UTC
Ah! I didn't see the review! Sorry about that Antonio! I'll work on this right away!

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2015-08-02 11:02:40 UTC
*** Bug 1249096 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Antonio 2016-02-28 18:44:29 UTC
We are late...

Comment 5 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2016-05-02 14:53:44 UTC
I got down to this - and it turns out the build is broken in the mercurial repo. I'll have to fix and patch it again. Working on it now.

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2017-12-17 14:14:53 UTC
Lots of changes, dropping it for the time being.

Comment 7 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2018-08-26 09:55:41 UTC
WIP, Working on it now.

Comment 8 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2019-01-02 11:54:52 UTC
We cannot proceed with this until upstream updates iv to use a new libtiff version. Issue reported here: https://github.com/neuronsimulator/iv/issues/3

I'll try to do it if/when I find cycles. I've built neuron without iv support for the time being.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.