Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint-3.0.19-1.fc31.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: libcint is an open source library for analytical Gaussian integrals. It provides C/Fortran API to evaluate one-electron / two-electron integrals for Cartesian / real-spherical / spinor Gaussian type functions. This is a re-review request for a package that was retired in August due to FTBFS.
- %check fails due to a missing numpy dependency: test 1 Start 1: cinttest 1: Test command: /usr/bin/python3.8 "/builddir/build/BUILD/libcint-3.0.19/testsuite/test_cint.py" "--quick" 1: Test timeout computed to be: 10000000 1: Traceback (most recent call last): 1: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/libcint-3.0.19/testsuite/test_cint.py", line 15, in <module> 1: import numpy 1: ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy' 1/2 Test #1: cinttest .........................***Failed 0.12 sec test 2 Start 2: cint3c2etest 2: Test command: /usr/bin/python3.8 "/builddir/build/BUILD/libcint-3.0.19/testsuite/test_3c2e.py" "--quick" 2: Test timeout computed to be: 10000000 2: Traceback (most recent call last): 2: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/libcint-3.0.19/testsuite/test_3c2e.py", line 15, in <module> 2: import numpy 2: ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'numpy' 2/2 Test #2: cint3c2etest .....................***Failed 0.04 sec 0% tests passed, 2 tests failed out of 2 Total Test time (real) = 0.16 sec The following tests FAILED: 1 - cinttest (Failed) 2 - cint3c2etest (Failed) Errors while running CTest - your package explicitly buildrequires python2-devel, which is forbidden
Sorry, I only checked that the package built on my workstation and forgot to check mock; the buildrequirements were still in original condition. Updating br's to python3-devel and python3-numpy fixes the issues. https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint-3.0.19-2.fc31.src.rpm
I'll take a closer look during the weekend. A few suggestions: - use %make_build and %make_install instead of manual make invocations - %ldconfig_scriptlets is obsolete and can be removed - consider using %autosetup instead of %setup & %patch - don't bump Release before the package is published - where does the existing %changelog come from?
(In reply to dan.cermak from comment #3) > I'll take a closer look during the weekend. > > A few suggestions: > - use %make_build and %make_install instead of manual make invocations > - %ldconfig_scriptlets is obsolete and can be removed done > - consider using %autosetup instead of %setup & %patch %autosetup doesn't allow patch backups, see https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html > - don't bump Release before the package is published That would go against long-standing, established policy in Fedora package review; how will anyone know what has changed? See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FrequentlyMadePackagingMistakes?rd=Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes > - where does the existing %changelog come from? See comment 0. https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint-3.0.19-3.fc31.src.rpm
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #4) > (In reply to dan.cermak from comment #3) > > I'll take a closer look during the weekend. > > > > A few suggestions: > > - use %make_build and %make_install instead of manual make invocations > > - %ldconfig_scriptlets is obsolete and can be removed > > done > > > - consider using %autosetup instead of %setup & %patch > > %autosetup doesn't allow patch backups, see > https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html Fair enough > > > - don't bump Release before the package is published > > That would go against long-standing, established policy in Fedora package > review; how will anyone know what has changed? See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FrequentlyMadePackagingMistakes?rd=Packaging: > FrequentlyMadeMistakes Huh, didn't know this was recommended. Thanks for the pointer! > > > - where does the existing %changelog come from? > > See comment 0. Ah, sorry, missed that line. > > https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint.spec > https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint-3.0.19-3.fc31.src.rpm This looks overall very good, I have the following two minor issues: - Patch0 should include a link to https://github.com/sunqm/libcint/pull/33 - Upstream contains a documentation in the doc/ folder, consider building and installing it? Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libcint See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 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]: 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 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 [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [x]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: %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.
Thanks for the review, the minor issues have been fixed. https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/libcint-3.0.19-4.fc31.src.rpm
Thanks for the fixes, package approved!
libcint-3.0.19-4.fc30, python-pyscf-1.7.0-4.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-2020-5d3090636b
libcint-3.0.19-4.fc31, python-pyscf-1.7.0-4.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-75fcd7c6aa
libcint-3.0.19-4.fc30, python-pyscf-1.7.0-4.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libcint-3.0.19-4.fc31, python-pyscf-1.7.0-4.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.