Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac-22.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola Description: The modern open-source version of the Molecular Orbital PACkage (MOPAC), a semiempirical quantum chemistry program based on Dewar and Thiel's NDDO approximation.
Update to 22.0.1. https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac-22.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm
Package failed to build on all rawhide architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/test-builds/build/4460673/ e.g. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fuller/test-builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04460673-mopac/builder-live.log.gz """ ... + /usr/bin/ctest --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j2 Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/mopac-22.0.0/redhat-linux-build Start 1: port Could not find executable python ... """
Link to build failure log is no longer available https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/test-builds/packages/
Sorry about that. Thanks for catching it I reran the builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/review-june-2022/build/4500640/ Build log here: https://fuller.fedorapeople.org/mopac-copr-builder-live.log.gz
@cicku @mtasaka Based on the information at http://openmopac.net/ maybe this should obsolete MOPAC7 which is already packaged https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/mopac7/mopac7/ ?
mopac7 is the dependency for libghemical, so (at least for now) replacing mopac7 with this package cannot be done easily.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > @cicku > @mtasaka > Based on the information at http://openmopac.net/ maybe this should obsolete > MOPAC7 which is already packaged > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/mopac7/mopac7/ ? MOPAC7 is a snapshot of the code that's almost 2 decades old. Per Fedora policy, package renames also require reviews, so this package anyways needs a new review. MOPAC7 can be deprecated later on when codes have had time to switch to the up-to-date open source version, but there is no hurry for that.
Fixed the build issue https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/mopac-22.0.1-2.fc36.src.rpm
I approve, noting two issues It's also been over a week since responding to Benson's comment, so I assume this can be considered resolved Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Fails to build on s390x (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fuller/review-june-2022/build/4534513/) - Deferring issues related to replacing MOPAC7, per above ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/openmopac/mopac/archive/v22.0.1/mopac-22.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13008ea4c0db8815a88e8fb5f9bf067ddf48223957f83e768fc2bb2c113b5eaa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13008ea4c0db8815a88e8fb5f9bf067ddf48223957f83e768fc2bb2c113b5eaa Requires -------- mopac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmopac.so.1()(64bit) mopac-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) mopac-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mopac-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmopac.so.1()(64bit) mopac-libs(x86-64) mopac-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mopac-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mopac: mopac mopac(x86-64) mopac-libs: libmopac.so.1()(64bit) mopac-libs mopac-libs(x86-64) mopac-devel: mopac-devel mopac-devel(x86-64) mopac-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mopac-debuginfo mopac-debuginfo(x86-64) mopac-debugsource: mopac-debugsource mopac-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mopac --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Python, fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! I'll work with upstream to look at the s390x issue.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mopac
Hi Susi, for the record, I sent you an email this morning, please check also your spam box if you are on gmail, Google apparently doesn't like me :-)
FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60
FEDORA-2022-d186678f69 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d186678f69
FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-d186678f69 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-d186678f69 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d186678f69 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-d186678f69 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-dc37d36c60 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.