Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bluepyopt/python-bluepyopt.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bluepyopt/python-bluepyopt-1.9.149-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The Blue Brain Python Optimisation Library (BluePyOpt) is an extensible framework for data-driven model parameter optimisation that wraps and standardises several existing open-source tools. It simplifies the task of creating and sharing these optimisations, and the associated techniques and knowledge. This is achieved by abstracting the optimisation and evaluation tasks into various reusable and flexible discrete elements according to established best-practices. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
*** Bug 1849706 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
- Consider adding the examples in %doc (split it in a doc subpackage if it's too big) - srcname is not defined: %py_provides python3-%{srcname} → %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name} Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import. 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. [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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 188 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python- bluepyopt/review-python-bluepyopt/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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 1 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 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-bluepyopt-1.9.149-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-bluepyopt-1.9.149-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-bluepyopt.noarch: E: devel-dependency neuron-devel python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bluebrain -> Blue brain, Blue-brain, Lamebrain python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisation -> optimization, improvisation, misapplication python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US standardises -> standardizes, standardize, standards python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisations -> optimizations, optimization, improvisations python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides python-%{srcname} = 1.9.149-1.fc35 %{srcname} python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides python3-%{srcname} = 1.9.149-1.fc35 %{srcname} python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Provides python3.9-%{srcname} = 1.9.149-1.fc35 %{srcname} python3-bluepyopt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bpopt_tasksdb python-bluepyopt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bluebrain -> Blue brain, Blue-brain, Lamebrain python-bluepyopt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisation -> optimization, improvisation, misapplication python-bluepyopt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US standardises -> standardizes, standardize, standards python-bluepyopt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimisations -> optimizations, optimization, improvisations python-bluepyopt.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/BlueBrain/BluePyOpt <urlopen error timed out> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bluepyopt
Thanks for the quick review! I've included the examples in a new sub-package, and corrected the py_provide macro usage. Here are the updated SPEC/SRPM: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bluepyopt/python-bluepyopt.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bluepyopt/python-bluepyopt-1.9.149-1.fc34.src.rpm Importing to SCM now. Cheers, Ankur
FEDORA-2021-70f967b242 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70f967b242
FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a
FEDORA-2021-70f967b242 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-70f967b242 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70f967b242 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-70f967b242 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-78352aaa6a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.