Spec URL: openkim-models-2019.03.31-1.fc29.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/openkim-models.spec TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34442044 Description: OpenKIM is an online framework for making molecular simulations reliable, reproducible, and portable. Models conforming to the KIM application programming interface work seamlessly with major simulation codes that have adopted the KIM-API standard. This package contains the models from openkim.org. Fedora Account System Username: junghans
Sorry, missing SRPM url: Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/openkim-models.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/openkim-models-2019.03.31-1.fc29.src.rpm
- There's a CDDL license file in the archive, you must install it with %license in %files. Also include the text of other licenses from the subdirectories (rename the files if necessary) - You should add a comment with the breaking down of the licenses. Most of it is CDDL except X… Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: 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: "Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated", "Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0) GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0) Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0)", "*No copyright* Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0)". 1049 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/openkim-models/review-openkim- models/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/kim-api/model- drivers(kim-api-examples), /usr/lib64/kim-api/models(kim-api-examples) [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. [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 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]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: openkim-models-2019.03.31-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm openkim-models-debuginfo-2019.03.31-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm openkim-models-debugsource-2019.03.31-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm openkim-models-2019.03.31-1.fc31.src.rpm openkim-models.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - There's a CDDL license file in the archive, you must install it with > %license in %files. Also include the text of other licenses from the > subdirectories (rename the files if necessary) > > - You should add a comment with the breaking down of the licenses. Most of > it is CDDL except X… Fixed. Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/openkim-models.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc29.src.rpm
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openkim-models
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f1b06ed568
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8b59431556
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c731c08044
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-47b976e4de
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8b59431556
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-47b976e4de
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f1b06ed568
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c731c08044
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openkim-models-2019.03.31-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.