Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/autodock_vina.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/autodock_vina-1.1.2-1.el6.src.rpm Description: AutoDock Vina is a program to support drug discovery, molecular docking and virtual screening of compound libraries. It offers multi-core capability, high performance and enhanced accuracy and ease of use. The same institute also developed autodock, which is widely used. O. Trott, A. J. Olson, AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization and multithreading, Journal of Computational Chemistry 31 (2010) 455-461 Fedora Account System Username: loveshack Requested: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/BioinformaticsWishList Copr builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/20492/
This is only an unofficial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - This is just a suggestion. I think it would be better if you put each BuildRequire in a seperate line. Its easy to compare spec files this way. - Move the LICENSE file from %doc to %license. See : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image - You should have incremented the release number to 2 and same should have been reflected in the ChangeLog entry corresponding to Jun 30, 2014. - %defattr is not needed for rpm>=4.4 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions - I am not sure about it. This is just a suggestion. Your description can be made short. I don't think there is need of last two paragraphs in your description at all. - Package must not contain rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of the install. - %clean section only contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. This is not needed. - Your patch files contains ^M characters at the end of file. It seems you transferred them from Windows and hence needs to be processed. - You don't require BuildRoot tag unless it is for EPEL5. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. See Issues. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed. See Issues. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: 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). [!]: 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 %license. See Issues above. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!]: 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 work. [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 %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [!]: 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 architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: autodock_vina-1.1.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm autodock_vina-1.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm autodock_vina.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti autodock_vina.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autodock -> auto dock, auto-dock, autodidact autodock_vina.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trott -> Trot, Trots, Trout autodock_vina.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreading -> multitasking autodock_vina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti autodock_vina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autodock -> auto dock, auto-dock, autodidact autodock_vina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Trott -> Trot, Trots, Trout autodock_vina.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreading -> multitasking 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- autodock_vina (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libboost_serialization.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.55.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- autodock_vina: autodock_vina autodock_vina(x86-64) This looks good. Source checksums ---------------- http://vina.scripps.edu/download/autodock_vina_1_1_2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b86412d316960b1e4e319401719daf57ff009229d91654d623c3cf09339f6776 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b86412d316960b1e4e319401719daf57ff009229d91654d623c3cf09339f6776
Dave - are you still interested in getting this into Fedora?
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #2) > Dave - are you still interested in getting this into Fedora? I guess not, as people here aren't interested in packaging, and package maintenance is getting increasingly painful.
Closing it then. Feel free to re-open if you'd like to give it another shot.