Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-cma.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-cma-1.1.06-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: A stochastic numerical optimization algorithm for difficult (non-convex, ill-conditioned, multi-modal, rugged, noisy) optimization problems in continuous search spaces, implemented in Python. Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1322993-python- cma/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-cma , python3-cma [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-cma-1.1.06-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-cma-1.1.06-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-cma-1.1.06-1.fc25.src.rpm python2-cma.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python2-matplotlib python2-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Covariance -> Co variance, Co-variance, Variance python2-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti python2-cma.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://www.lri.fr/~hansen/cmaes_inmatlab.html#python <urlopen error [Errno -5] No address associated with hostname> python2-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python2-cma/README.txt python3-cma.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-matplotlib python3-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Covariance -> Co variance, Co-variance, Variance python3-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti python3-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-cma/README.txt python-cma.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Covariance -> Co variance, Co-variance, Variance python-cma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-cma.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-matplotlib python3-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Covariance -> Co variance, Co-variance, Variance python3-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti python3-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-cma/README.txt python2-cma.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python2-matplotlib python2-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Covariance -> Co variance, Co-variance, Variance python2-cma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti python2-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python2-cma/README.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-cma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-matplotlib python3-numpy python2-cma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi) python2-matplotlib Provides -------- python3-cma: python3-cma python2-cma: python-cma python2-cma Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cma/cma-1.1.06.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 84d1b56bbd77d6758ef853d29dddf1651e4de8e54d47c0512cfc412089519ed7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84d1b56bbd77d6758ef853d29dddf1651e4de8e54d47c0512cfc412089519ed7 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1322993 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Issues: [!]: 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. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. NON blocking issues: python2-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python2-cma/README.txt
I don't think any of this is blocking... (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > Issues: > > [!]: 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. This doesn't apply, because the source package does not include the text of the license in its own file. > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. This doesn't apply, the package does not include the license text file. > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I'll write a mail to the upstream address, but this package hasn't seen updates recently, so I wouldn't count on this getting fixed quickly. Anyway, it's a "should", so not blocking. > NON blocking issues: > python2-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/python2-cma/README.txt I looked into this before, and the file displays fine in less and on the terminal. EOLs would only matter if somebody was to edit this file, but they are not... I don't think there's any need reason to change the EOLs.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > I don't think any of this is blocking... > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > > Issues: > > > > [!]: 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. > This doesn't apply, because the source package does not include the text of > the license in its own file. > > > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > This doesn't apply, the package does not include the license text file. > > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > I'll write a mail to the upstream address, but this package hasn't seen > updates recently, so I wouldn't count on this getting fixed quickly. Anyway, > it's a "should", so not blocking. Thanks > > NON blocking issues: > > python2-cma.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > > /usr/share/doc/python2-cma/README.txt > I looked into this before, and the file displays fine in less and on the > terminal. EOLs would only matter if somebody was to edit this file, but they > are not... I don't think there's any need reason to change the EOLs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
Approved
Thanks! I notified the upstream about the package, and asked for the license file.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-cma
Package built, updates submitted.