Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03260075-maeparser/maeparser.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03260075-maeparser/maeparser-1.2.4-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Parser for Schrodinger Maestro file formats, which are used as output from a wide range of proprietary chemistry/life science/material science software packages Fedora Account System Username: fuller
This package is useful to resume RDKIT in Fedora
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed > rm %{buildroot}/usr/lib/cmake/%{name}*.cmake Why are you removing *cmake config file? It can be useful. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/2048217-maeparser/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 10240 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 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 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 ===== 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/schrodinger/maeparser/archive/refs/tags/v1.2.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c62d5846c85a2982cfa8895ffbed8a6ce57678d936ddfebf429546fab4b0a36d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c62d5846c85a2982cfa8895ffbed8a6ce57678d936ddfebf429546fab4b0a36d Requires -------- maeparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_iostreams.so.1.76.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) maeparser-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): maeparser(x86-64) maeparser-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): maeparser-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- maeparser: libmaeparser.so.1()(64bit) maeparser maeparser(x86-64) maeparser-devel: maeparser-devel maeparser-devel(x86-64) maeparser-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) maeparser-debuginfo maeparser-debuginfo(x86-64) maeparser-debugsource: maeparser-debugsource maeparser-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2048217 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, R, Perl, Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04307487-maeparser/maeparser.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04307487-maeparser/maeparser-1.2.4-1.fc37.src.rpm I updated to not remove the cmake config file and yes, my goal (on hold) was to get RDKIT and some other chemistry software into Fedora Thank you
> %{_prefix}/lib/cmake/%{name}*.cmake This is wrong for x86_64 Patch the CMakeLists.txt file: ``` --- CMakeLists.origin.txt 2020-10-13 19:18:02.000000000 +0200 +++ CMakeLists.txt 2022-04-24 18:55:46.282345739 +0200 @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ INSTALL(EXPORT maeparser-targets FILE ${PROJECT_NAME}-config.cmake - DESTINATION lib/cmake) + DESTINATION lib${LIB_SUFFIX}/cmake) file(GLOB mae_headers "*.hpp") install(FILES ${mae_headers} DESTINATION include/maeparser) ``` > my goal (on hold) was to get RDKIT and some other chemistry software into Fedora Okay, let me know when you decide to resume rdkit please.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04307606-maeparser/maeparser.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04307606-maeparser/maeparser-1.2.4-1.fc37.src.rpm Thank you for the patch! I opened a PR for this (https://github.com/schrodinger/maeparser/pull/73) and amended the SPEC and rebuilt the SRPM accordingly If you are interested in coordinating on rdkit, I would be happy to look at it again. Otherwise, since I just left the group for which it was relevant, it might be a while before I think about it again
Package approved. > If you are interested in coordinating on rdkit Okay. I will recover RDKIT as soon as possible.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maeparser
FEDORA-2022-5dacb6b3c6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5dacb6b3c6
FEDORA-2022-5dacb6b3c6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.