Bug 984175 (IQmol) - Review Request: IQmol - A free open-source molecular editor and visualization package
Summary: Review Request: IQmol - A free open-source molecular editor and visualization...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: IQmol
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Antonio T. (sagitter)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: QMsgBox QsLog
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-07-13 09:16 UTC by Susi Lehtola
Modified: 2014-01-18 18:19 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-11 08:37:20 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
anto.trande: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Susi Lehtola 2013-07-13 09:16:59 UTC
Spec URL:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol.spec

SRPM URL:
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm

Description:
IQmol is a free open-source molecular editor and visualization
package. It offers a range of features including a molecular editor,
surface generation (orbitals and densities) and animations
(vibrational modes and reaction pathways).

Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola

rpmlint output:
IQmol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vibrational -> vibration, gravitational, calibration
IQmol.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vibrational -> vibration, gravitational, calibration
IQmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary IQmol
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

These are non-issues.

Comment 1 Susi Lehtola 2013-07-18 00:11:45 UTC
Updated to 2.2.0.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol-2.2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm

The dependency on bug #984173 is a soft one; the package works as is, but it would be nice to improve on the openbabel packaging.

Comment 2 Felix Kaechele 2013-08-03 15:52:21 UTC
Fails to build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5723459

Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2013-08-07 11:20:09 UTC
Hmm, looks like I somehow uploaded some old version of the srpm. Please try again, now it works.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5789223

Comment 4 Susi Lehtola 2013-08-07 17:59:08 UTC
It seems the build still fails on arm7hl, but this is an architecture dependent issue. I've contacted upstream about this, it should be a pretty simple fix.

Comment 6 Volker Fröhlich 2013-08-12 17:24:39 UTC
Probably worth fixing:

/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/IQmol-2.2.0-3.fc18.x86_64//usr/share/applications/IQmol.desktop: hint: value "Education;Science;Chemistry;Physics;Biology;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains more than one main category; application might appear more than once in the application menu

The qmake macro doesn't seem to work in F18, if you mind.

QsLog looks like something bundled to me.

What's the upstream status of the patches? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

Comment 7 Susi Lehtola 2013-08-12 17:51:26 UTC
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #6)
> Probably worth fixing:
> 
> /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/IQmol-2.2.0-3.fc18.x86_64//usr/share/
> applications/IQmol.desktop: hint: value
> "Education;Science;Chemistry;Physics;Biology;" for key "Categories" in group
> "Desktop Entry" contains more than one main category; application might
> appear more than once in the application menu

What program gives this kind of hint?

There's nothing wrong with multiple categories. Lots of programs do it, because the program fits multiple categories.

> The qmake macro doesn't seem to work in F18, if you mind.

You probably don't have qt4-devel installed, which is a BR.
 
> QsLog looks like something bundled to me.

So is QMsgBox. These seem like old, small projects that don't really have much releases..
 
> What's the upstream status of the patches?
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

All the patches (except 0) are essentially upstream.

Comment 8 Volker Fröhlich 2013-08-12 18:20:57 UTC
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #7)
> (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #6)
> > Probably worth fixing:
> > 
> > /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/IQmol-2.2.0-3.fc18.x86_64//usr/share/
> > applications/IQmol.desktop: hint: value
> > "Education;Science;Chemistry;Physics;Biology;" for key "Categories" in group
> > "Desktop Entry" contains more than one main category; application might
> > appear more than once in the application menu
> 
> What program gives this kind of hint?

I suppose that's desktop-file-validate. It's at the bottom of the build output.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with multiple categories. Lots of programs do it,
> because the program fits multiple categories.
> 
> > The qmake macro doesn't seem to work in F18, if you mind.
> 
> You probably don't have qt4-devel installed, which is a BR.

rpmbuild doesn't let you build without BRs installed.
>  
> > QsLog looks like something bundled to me.
> 
> So is QMsgBox. These seem like old, small projects that don't really have
> much releases..
>  
> > What's the upstream status of the patches?
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
> 
> All the patches (except 0) are essentially upstream.

Add URIs or comments then!

Comment 9 Susi Lehtola 2013-08-12 18:52:12 UTC
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #8)
> I suppose that's desktop-file-validate. It's at the bottom of the build
> output.

Right. Still, this is not a problem; it's something we want.

> > > The qmake macro doesn't seem to work in F18, if you mind.
> > 
> > You probably don't have qt4-devel installed, which is a BR.
> 
> rpmbuild doesn't let you build without BRs installed.

Then your system is otherwise broken. I have had no problems with the macro on any releases since around F14 IIRC.

> > > What's the upstream status of the patches?
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> > > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
> > 
> > All the patches (except 0) are essentially upstream.
> 
> Add URIs or comments then!

This is a SHOULD item, not a MUST. The patches already have comments on what they do, and have also version info.

Comment 11 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-12-17 18:44:07 UTC
- Some BSD licensed files (QsLog.cpp, QsDebugOutput.cpp, QsLogDest.cpp) are compiled during the building.
  Please update License tag

- Fix all minor warnings listed by rpmlint (strange-permission, mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs)   


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
  or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 2846720 bytes in 5 files.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/sagitter/984175-IQmol/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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
     file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in IQmol-
     samples
[ ]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: 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
-------
Checking: IQmol-2.2.0-4.fc21.i686.rpm
          IQmol-samples-2.2.0-4.fc21.noarch.rpm
          IQmol-2.2.0-4.fc21.src.rpm
IQmol.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vibrational -> vibration, gravitational, calibration
IQmol.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary IQmol
IQmol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vibrational -> vibration, gravitational, calibration
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol-2.2.0-includes.patch 0600L
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol-2.2.0-qreal.patch 0600L
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol-2.2.0-fedora.patch 0600L
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol-2.2.0-0d68f59.tar.gz 0600L
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol.spec 0600L
IQmol.src: W: strange-permission IQmol-2.2.0-openbabel.patch 0600L
IQmol.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 17, tab: line 4)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint IQmol-samples IQmol
IQmol.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vibrational -> vibration, gravitational, calibration
IQmol.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary IQmol
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
IQmol-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

IQmol (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libGL.so.1
    libGLU.so.1
    libQGLViewer.so.2.3.9
    libQMsgBox.so.1
    libQtCore.so.4
    libQtGui.so.4
    libQtNetwork.so.4
    libQtOpenGL.so.4
    libQtSql.so.4
    libQtXml.so.4
    libboost_iostreams.so.1.54.0
    libboost_serialization.so.1.54.0
    libc.so.6
    libcrypto.so.10
    libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)
    libgcc_s.so.1
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)
    libgfortran.so.3
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)
    libgl2ps.so.1
    libm.so.6
    libopenbabel.so.4
    libpthread.so.0
    libssh2.so.1
    libssl.so.10
    libstdc++.so.6
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
    libz.so.1
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
IQmol-samples:
    IQmol-samples

IQmol:
    IQmol
    IQmol(x86-32)
    application()
    application(IQmol.desktop)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nutjunkie/IQmol/archive/0d68f59c52a94734160ef644110bc918d6c132ed/IQmol-2.2.0-0d68f59.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d0989a2cf617b9a702ad96fa8d03dd8823348e18dbf6706e03e81f05d7e62d81
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0989a2cf617b9a702ad96fa8d03dd8823348e18dbf6706e03e81f05d7e62d81


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 984175
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

Comment 12 Susi Lehtola 2013-12-18 06:47:36 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> - Some BSD licensed files (QsLog.cpp, QsDebugOutput.cpp, QsLogDest.cpp) are
> compiled during the building.

Oh, good catch. I actually had not finished taking out QsLog. Done.

>   Please update License tag

Well, the license tag specifies the license of the rpm, and GPLv2+ + GPLv3+ + BSD result in GPLv3+. But I've specified these now explicitly.
 
> - Fix all minor warnings listed by rpmlint (strange-permission,
> mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs)   

The strange permissions stuff is spurious, it'll any case disappear upon import to Fedora. Fixed.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 13 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-12-18 14:34:05 UTC
Package approved !

Comment 14 Susi Lehtola 2013-12-18 16:32:06 UTC
Thanks for the review!

But the bad thing is I just realized I forgot to submit QsLog for review as well!

Comment 15 Susi Lehtola 2014-01-02 17:22:02 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: IQmol
Short Description: A free open-source molecular editor and visualization package
Owners: jussilehtola
Branches: F18 F19 F20 EL6
InitialCC:

Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-02 17:23:39 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

No new f18 branches are being created.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2014-01-02 23:29:33 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2014-01-02 23:29:47 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6,QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6,QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2014-01-02 23:30:00 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19,QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2014-01-03 01:52:46 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6, QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2014-01-11 08:37:20 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc20, QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2014-01-11 08:40:42 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.fc19, QsLog-0-3.54hg.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2014-01-18 18:19:38 UTC
IQmol-2.2.0-6.el6, QsLog-0-3.54hg.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.