Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: COPASI is a software application for simulation and analysis of biochemical networks and their dynamics. COPASI is a stand-alone program that supports models in the SBML standard and can simulate their behavior using ODEs or Gillespie's stochastic simulation algorithm; arbitrary discrete events can be included in such simulations. COPASI carries out several analyses of the network and its dynamics and has extensive support for parameter estimation and optimization. COPASI provides means to visualize data in customizable plots, histograms and animations of network diagrams. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-3.20150626git678de9.fc22.src.rpm - Update to post-release #678de9 (ARM fixing) - Without QWT6 - Packaged an appdata file for COPASI-gui - Built with clang on F23 64bit Ready for reviewing!
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-4.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm - Update to post-release #192df4 - With QWT6 - Octave binding disabled (Octave 4.0 is not supported yet)
It looks like these two lines are unused and are causing problems because qmake isn't available when they're run: %global qtinc %(qmake -query QT_INSTALL_PREFIX)/include %global qtlib %(qmake -query QT_INSTALL_PREFIX)/lib
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #3) > It looks like these two lines are unused and are causing problems because > qmake isn't available when they're run: > %global qtinc %(qmake -query QT_INSTALL_PREFIX)/include > %global qtlib %(qmake -query QT_INSTALL_PREFIX)/lib They are unused macros from previous releases; removed. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-5.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-6.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm - QWT5/6 lib paths set separately
Building the package in mock runs into an issue when extracting debuginfo: + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 10000000 --dwz-max-die-limit 50000000 /builddir/build/BUILD/COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186 extracting debug info from /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/COPASI-4.16.101-5.20150707git192df4.fc23.i386/usr/lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so /usr/lib/rpm/debugedit: canonicalization unexpectedly shrank by one character error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZsIkRu (%install)
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #6) > Building the package in mock runs into an issue when extracting debuginfo: > > + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz > --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 10000000 --dwz-max-die-limit 50000000 > /builddir/build/BUILD/COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186 > extracting debug info from > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/COPASI-4.16.101-5.20150707git192df4.fc23.i386/usr/ > lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so > /usr/lib/rpm/debugedit: canonicalization unexpectedly shrank by one character > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZsIkRu (%install) Please, rebuild latest release posted in the comment#5.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #6) > > Building the package in mock runs into an issue when extracting debuginfo: > > > Please, rebuild latest release posted in the comment#5. The following still had issues when extracting debuginfo: mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 --rebuild ~/1231427-COPASI/srpm/COPASI-4.16.101-6.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #6) > > Building the package in mock runs into an issue when extracting debuginfo: > > > > + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz > > --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 10000000 --dwz-max-die-limit 50000000 > > /builddir/build/BUILD/COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186 > > extracting debug info from > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/COPASI-4.16.101-5.20150707git192df4.fc23.i386/usr/ > > lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so > > /usr/lib/rpm/debugedit: canonicalization unexpectedly shrank by one character > > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZsIkRu (%install) > > Please, rebuild latest release posted in the comment#5. Honestly, i don't know what causes this error yet (it seems to influence all binding libraries). I read of slash issues which create these types of error but i don't see any double slash // by executing 'readelf'.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9) > Honestly, i don't know what causes this error yet (it seems to influence all > binding libraries). > > I read of slash issues which create these types of error but i don't > see any double slash // by executing 'readelf'. fedora-review doesn't populate review.txt since the build fails, so until this issue is resolved, I can't complete the review.
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #10) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9) > > Honestly, i don't know what causes this error yet (it seems to influence all > > binding libraries). > > > > I read of slash issues which create these types of error but i don't > > see any double slash // by executing 'readelf'. > > fedora-review doesn't populate review.txt since the build fails, so until > this issue is resolved, I can't complete the review. Please, review this release without debug packages: Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-7.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #10) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9) > > > Honestly, i don't know what causes this error yet (it seems to influence all > > > binding libraries). > > > > > > I read of slash issues which create these types of error but i don't > > > see any double slash // by executing 'readelf'. > > > > fedora-review doesn't populate review.txt since the build fails, so until > > this issue is resolved, I can't complete the review. > > Please, review this release without debug packages: > > Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec > SRPM URL: > https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-7.20150707git192df4. > fc22.src.rpm Sorry, it's the release number 8: Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc22.src.rpm
Issues: ======= [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Several .so files in %_libdir. Are these ok? [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. license.txt does not appear to be Artistic 2.0 and states "You cannot redistribute this test version." [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: BSD (2 clause) -------------- COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/randomGenerator/Cmt19937.cpp COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/randomGenerator/Cmt19937.h GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/model/CChemEqParser_yacc.cpp COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/model/CChemEqParser_yacc.hpp GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ---------------------------------------------------------------- COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/MIRIAM/WebServicesIssues/stdsoap2.cpp COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/MIRIAM/WebServicesIssues/stdsoap2.h GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/function/CEvaluationParser_yacc.cpp COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/function/CEvaluationParser_yacc.hpp LGPL ---- COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/sbml/IdList.h MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/GL/glext.h [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto, /usr/lib/perl5, /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl, /usr/lib/mono, /usr/share/copasi, /usr/share/java [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Missing -debuginfo. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. I'm not sure which of these are appropriate, but: Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in COPASI- gui , COPASI-data , python-COPASI , python3-COPASI , java-COPASI , perl-COPASI , R-COPASI , COPASI-sharp , COPASI-doc [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Needs to be fixed Other Issues: ======= [!]: examples are in -data but would it make sense for them to be somewhere else? [!]: I would recommend making the .desktop and .appdata.xml sources to simplify the .spec file. ===== 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: Tests are of packaging and not of COPASI itself [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 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: COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm COPASI-gui-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm COPASI-data-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.noarch.rpm python-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm python3-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm java-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm perl-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm R-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm COPASI-sharp-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm COPASI-doc-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.noarch.rpm COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.src.rpm COPASI.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiSE COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiSE COPASI-gui.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization COPASI-gui.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiUI COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiUI COPASI-data.noarch: W: no-documentation python-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so python-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation python3-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so python3-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation java-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/copasi/libCopasiJava.so java-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation perl-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/COPASI/COPASI.so perl-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation R-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/libs/COPASI.so R-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/AnIndex R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/COPASI.rdb COPASI-sharp.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so COPASI-sharp.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation COPASI.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization COPASI.src:489: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/copasicsP/ 11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 23 warnings. Only issue of concern seems to be the unstripped files, but I'm guessing that that's related to the -debuginfo not working. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/COPASI/COPASI.so perl-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation java-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/copasi/libCopasiJava.so java-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI-gui.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiUI COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiUI R-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/libs/COPASI.so R-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/AnIndex R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/COPASI.rdb COPASI-sharp.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so COPASI-sharp.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation python-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so python-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation python3-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so python3-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiSE COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation COPASI.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiSE COPASI-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 20 warnings. Same comment as above.
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13) > Issues: > ======= > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Several .so files in %_libdir. Are these ok? Yes, they are in private %_libdir sub-directories. > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > license.txt does not appear to be Artistic 2.0 and states "You cannot > redistribute this test version." > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: > BSD (2 clause) > -------------- > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/randomGenerator/ > Cmt19937.cpp > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/randomGenerator/ > Cmt19937.h > GPL (v2 or later) > ----------------- > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/model/ > CChemEqParser_yacc.cpp > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/model/ > CChemEqParser_yacc.hpp > GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/MIRIAM/ > WebServicesIssues/stdsoap2.cpp > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/MIRIAM/ > WebServicesIssues/stdsoap2.h > GPL (v3 or later) > ----------------- > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/function/ > CEvaluationParser_yacc.cpp > > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/function/ > CEvaluationParser_yacc.hpp > LGPL > ---- > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/sbml/IdList.h > MIT/X11 (BSD like) > ------------------ > COPASI-192df43f09810b4416c7c59bec08ed63a2c22186/copasi/GL/glext.h Fixed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto, /usr/lib/perl5, > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl, /usr/lib/mono, /usr/share/copasi, > /usr/share/java Only /usr/share/copasi must be owned by this package. > [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > Missing -debuginfo. Disabled. There is still the debugedit error. > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > I'm not sure which of these are appropriate, but: > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in COPASI- > gui , COPASI-data , python-COPASI , python3-COPASI , java-COPASI , > perl-COPASI , R-COPASI , COPASI-sharp , COPASI-doc Only COPASI and COPASI-gui need COPASI-data. All the others are stand-alone package. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > Needs to be fixed All patches are commented. > > Other Issues: > ======= > [!]: examples are in -data but would it make sense for them to be somewhere > else? > > [!]: I would recommend making the .desktop and .appdata.xml sources to > simplify the .spec file. It's not need to me. > > ===== 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [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. > [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [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]: 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. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or > desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. > [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > Java: > [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > > Python: > [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. > [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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). > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [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. > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. > NOTE: Tests are of packaging and not of COPASI itself > [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 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: COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > COPASI-gui-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > COPASI-data-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.noarch.rpm > python-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > python3-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > java-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > perl-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > R-COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > COPASI-sharp-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.i686.rpm > COPASI-doc-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.noarch.rpm > COPASI-4.16.101-8.20150707git192df4.fc23.src.rpm > COPASI.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization > COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiSE > COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiSE > COPASI-gui.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization > COPASI-gui.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiUI > COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiUI > COPASI-data.noarch: W: no-documentation > python-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so > python-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > python3-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so > python3-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > java-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/copasi/libCopasiJava.so > java-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > perl-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/COPASI/COPASI.so > perl-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > R-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/libs/COPASI.so > R-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/AnIndex > R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/COPASI.rdb > COPASI-sharp.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so > COPASI-sharp.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation > COPASI.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization > COPASI.src:489: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/mono/copasicsP/ > 11 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 23 warnings. > > Only issue of concern seems to be the unstripped files, but I'm guessing > that that's related to the -debuginfo not working. > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > perl-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/COPASI/COPASI.so > perl-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > java-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/copasi/libCopasiJava.so > java-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI-gui.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiUI > COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI-gui.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiUI > R-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/libs/COPASI.so > R-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/AnIndex > R-COPASI.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/R/library/COPASI/help/COPASI.rdb > COPASI-sharp.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/mono/copasicsP/libcopasics.so > COPASI-sharp.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation > python-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so > python-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > python3-COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/copasi/_COPASI.so > python3-COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/CopasiSE > COPASI.i686: W: no-documentation > COPASI.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CopasiSE > COPASI-data.noarch: W: no-documentation > 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 20 warnings. > > Same comment as above. SPEC: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16.101-11.20150725git435d61.fc22.src.rpm
SPEC: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16-0.12.20150817git3bc4e9.fc22.src.rpm - Bump to commit #3bc4e9 - Disabled debug package - Version tag changed to 4.16 (now it's built a pre-release) - CXX examples built This release provides various bug-fixes and improvements: http://copasi.org/Support/Change_History/COPASI_4_16_Build_104/
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13) > > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > Guidelines. > > license.txt does not appear to be Artistic 2.0 and states "You cannot > > redistribute this test version." license.txt still states "You cannot redistribute this test version". > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: > > ... > > Fixed. licensecheck still lists several files that are not Artistic 2.0 or GPLv2+.
(In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #16) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13) > > > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > > Guidelines. > > > license.txt does not appear to be Artistic 2.0 and states "You cannot > > > redistribute this test version." > > license.txt still states "You cannot redistribute this test version". It's an obsolete file. Removed. > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: > > > ... > > > > Fixed. > > licensecheck still lists several files that are not Artistic 2.0 or GPLv2+. Updated; please, read comment above License tag. SPEC: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI.spec SRPM: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/COPASI/COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc22.src.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17) > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #16) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #14) > > > (In reply to Dave Johansen from comment #13) > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > > Several licenses found by licensecheck. Here's the list: > > > > ... > > > > > > Fixed. > > > > licensecheck still lists several files that are not Artistic 2.0 or GPLv2+. > > Updated; please, read comment above License tag. I'm definitely not a license expert and so please pardon me continuing to check on this issue. I read the license guidelines ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios ) and FAQ ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Multiple_licensing_situations ) and I believe that you need to list GPLv2 and GPLv3. I'm not positive that that's required but I know that you will for sure be in compliance with the requirements listed on that page. Also, I personally would feel more comfortable if the files that are under different licenses that are unused were removed as part of %setup so it could be 100% certain that they are not part of the generated/packaged files, but I didn't see anything about that in the guidelines, so I'll leave that up to you.
GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are compatible licenses; using GPLv3+ means to include the GPLv2+ code too (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix). >Also, I personally would feel more comfortable if the files that are under >different licenses that are unused were removed as part of %setup so it could >be 100% certain that they are not part of the generated/packaged files, but I >didn't see anything about that in the guidelines, so I'll leave that up to you. That's not need; it's sufficient read the build log to be sure.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #19) > GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are compatible licenses; using GPLv3+ means to include the > GPLv2+ code too > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing: > Main?rd=Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix). > > >Also, I personally would feel more comfortable if the files that are under >different licenses that are unused were removed as part of %setup so it could >be 100% certain that they are not part of the generated/packaged files, but I >didn't see anything about that in the guidelines, so I'll leave that up to you. > > That's not need; it's sufficient read the build log to be sure. That resolves all of the issues then, so I marked it as approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: COPASI Short Description: Biochemical network simulator Upstream URL: http://copasi.org/ Owners: sagitter Branches: f22 f23
Git done (by process-git-requests).
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14399
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14400
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update COPASI'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14400
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update COPASI'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14399
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
COPASI-4.16-0.13.20150817git3bc4e9.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.