Spec URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/python-orange/python-orange.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/python-orange/python-orange-2.0b-0.20101215.1.fc14.src.rpm Description: Open source data visualization and analysis for novice and experts. Data mining through visual programming or Python scripting. Components for machine learning. Extensions for bioinformatics and text mining. Packed with features for data analytics.
If you try to install this package rpm/yum will complain that liborange.so is required but no package provides it. This is an error since the mentioned library is in the package itself?! I don't know yet to fix it or what causes it so use force option to rpm to install the package.
(In reply to comment #1) > If you try to install this package rpm/yum will complain that liborange.so is > required but no package provides it. This is an error since the mentioned > library is in the package itself?! I don't know yet to fix it or what causes it > so use force option to rpm to install the package. Does the package work as expected once installed? Maybe everything is fine, when you fixed rpmlint: * private-shared-object-provides see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Arch-specific_extensions_to_scripting_languages * binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath * wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding (When you fix the first warning, it should be installable again.)
Ok, I fixed that and other rpmlint warnings except rpath one. Since so binary is in a non standard path (inside python site specific dir), as I understand packaging guidelines, rpath can stay as is? Spec URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/python-orange/python-orange.spec SRPM URL: http://www.zemris.fer.hr/~sgros/stuff/fedora/python-orange/python-orange-2.0b-0.20101215.2.fc14.src.rpm And yes, library works for me (TM), since I have one program that uses orange and when I tried it it worked.
This review request is a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645321 Maybe you guys could work together to create and review the package?
Ok, I'll close this review request and transfer this to another bugzilla entry. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 645321 ***