Bug 1226664 - Review Request: fido-pi - Protein identification in MS/MS proteomics
Summary: Review Request: fido-pi - Protein identification in MS/MS proteomics
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-05-31 15:14 UTC by Antonio T. (sagitter)
Modified: 2015-06-21 00:02 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-06-21 00:02:36 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zbyszek: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1229412 0 unspecified CLOSED fedora-review is confused by license file name with spaces 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1229412

Description Antonio T. (sagitter) 2015-05-31 15:14:48 UTC
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Fido/fido-pi.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Fido/fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22.src.rpm

Description: 
Fido is a tool used in the area of computational proteomics.
It calculates posterior probabilities for protein
identifications based on database searches of tandem mass spectra.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

Another package named Fido is already in Fedora, i chose 'fido-pi' as name of this package. There are not conflicts between binary executable names.

Comment 1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2015-06-08 16:19:39 UTC
===== 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.
MIT two-clause.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "Unknown or generated". 118 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1226664
     -fido-pi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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).
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[-]: 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.
The binaries run. I didn't verify that they do useful things.

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.src.rpm
fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic
fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic
fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FidoChooseParameters
fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Fido
fido-pi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic
fido-pi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fido-pi-debuginfo-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic
fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic
fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FidoChooseParameters
fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Fido
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
fido-pi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
fido-pi:
    fido-pi
    fido-pi(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hendrikweisser/Fido/archive/281e4d1e85bc3d0f82f52dd04083d4dd2d1969b6.zip#/Fido-281e4d1e85bc3d0f82f52dd04083d4dd2d1969b6.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fef8bcb6ae4f7e20d7a72dba5450bce92b1a00362da3a29ddf279d808c14e34d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fef8bcb6ae4f7e20d7a72dba5450bce92b1a00362da3a29ddf279d808c14e34d


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1226664
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
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Package is APPROVED.

Comment 2 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2015-06-08 16:22:30 UTC
Thank you.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: fido-pi
Short Description: Protein identification in MS/MS proteomics
Upstream URL: https://github.com/hendrikweisser/Fido
Owners: sagitter
Branches: f22

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-06-08 23:04:28 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2015-06-09 10:02:23 UTC
fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2015-06-10 19:15:38 UTC
Package fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9731/fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2015-06-21 00:02:36 UTC
fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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