[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 12 00:27:18 UTC 2016
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc at gmail.com> ---
Detailed review below.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
---> Installs fine.
$ rpm -qa exciting*
exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch
exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
---> Can you please check this?
===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck.txt
--->
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
---> Present in -common.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d
---> /etc/profile.d is definitely owned!
[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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
echo $version)) missing?
---> Can you please check this?
===== 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.
---> license in included. All is good.
[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
exciting-openmpi , exciting-mpich , exciting-species , exciting-common
, exciting-debuginfo
---> This looks good.
base package versioned requires on -species
-openmpi has versioned requires on -species
-mpich has versioned requires on -species
-species has versioned requires on -common
In other words, everything looks good.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
---> This is not an issue. No issues installing and no new rpmlint issues when
run on installed packages.
Changing to [x].
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1863680 bytes in /usr/share
---> This looks fine.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.14
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/root/ --releasever
23 --setopt=deltarpm=false install
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
exciting-10-1.fc23.src.rpm
exciting.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized
exciting.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane
wave, plane-wave, warplane
exciting.x86_64: W: no-documentation
exciting.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary excitingsmp
exciting.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary excitingser
exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - openmpi
version
exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized ->
realized
exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave ->
plane wave, plane-wave, warplane
exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - mpich version
exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized ->
realized
exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave ->
plane wave, plane-wave, warplane
exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation
exciting-species.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - species files
exciting-species.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized ->
realized
exciting-species.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave ->
plane wave, plane-wave, warplane
exciting-species.noarch: W: no-documentation
exciting-common.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - common files
exciting-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized ->
realized
exciting-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave ->
plane wave, plane-wave, warplane
exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation
exciting-common.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/exciting/xml/inputfileconverter/basevec2abc.xsl
exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-stateinfo
exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-species
exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-stateconvert
exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-spacegroup
exciting.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized
exciting.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave,
plane-wave, warplane
exciting.src: W: file-size-mismatch exciting.boron-10.tar.gz = 14088080,
http://exciting.wdfiles.com/local--files/boron/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz = 404
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 28 warnings.
---> Most of these are bogus. The big issue is checksum mismatch for the source
tarball. Please check.
Requires
--------
exciting-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
/usr/bin/python
config(exciting-common)
libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopenblas.so.0()(64bit)
libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
exciting-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
exciting-species
libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit)
libarpack.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64)
libmpifort.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64)
libopenblas.so.0()(64bit)
libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
libxc.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
exciting-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
exciting-species
libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit)
libarpack.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libmpi.so.1()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
libmpi_mpifh.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
libmpi_usempi_ignore_tkr.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
libmpi_usempif08.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)
libopenblas.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
libxc.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
exciting-species (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
exciting-common
exciting-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
exciting (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
exciting-species
libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit)
libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit)
libarpack.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopenblas.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
libxc.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
exciting-common:
config(exciting-common)
exciting-common
exciting-common(x86-64)
exciting-mpich:
exciting-mpich
exciting-mpich(x86-64)
exciting-openmpi:
exciting-openmpi
exciting-openmpi(x86-64)
exciting-species:
exciting-species
exciting-debuginfo:
exciting-debuginfo
exciting-debuginfo(x86-64)
exciting:
exciting
exciting(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
http://exciting.wdfiles.com/local--files/boron/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
eabe424dd70c56173c2cfcfe8ca6b328ef2077d6ce9b3243540148a2d76f20ab
diff -r also reports differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1064657
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
More information about the package-review
mailing list