https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Bug ID: 1617953 Summary: Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: susi.lehtola@iki.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/OpenMolcas.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/OpenMolcas-18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc28.sr...
Description: OpenMolcas is a quantum chemistry software package developed by scientists and intended to be used by scientists. It includes programs to apply many different electronic structure methods to chemical systems, but its key feature is the multiconfigurational approach, with methods like CASSCF and CASPT2.
OpenMolcas is not a fork or reimplementation of Molcas, it is a large part of the Molcas codebase that has been released as free and open-source software (FOSS) under the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL). Some parts of Molcas remain under a different license by decision of their authors (or impossibility to reach them), and are therefore not included in OpenMolcas.
Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: <main |Review Request: OpenMolcas |package name here> - <short |- A multiconfigurational |summary here> |quantum chemistry software | |package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |OpenMolcas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %_make_install
- License is LGPLv2+ not v3 https://gitlab.com/Molcas/OpenMolcas/blob/master/LICENSE
- Your %changelog entry has the wrong Version-Release:
* Thu Aug 16 2018 Susi Lehtola jussilehtola@fedoraproject.org - 17.0-1.8b838a18
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Unknown or generated", "CC0 (v1) LGPL (v2.1)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0) LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* CC0 LGPL (v2.1)", "CC0 LGPL (v2.1)". 1065 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/OpenMolcas /review-OpenMolcas/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. [-]: 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 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in OpenMolcas-debuginfo , OpenMolcas-debugsource [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 ------- Checking: OpenMolcas-18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc29.x86_64.rpm OpenMolcas-debuginfo-18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc29.x86_64.rpm OpenMolcas-debugsource-18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc29.x86_64.rpm OpenMolcas-18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc29.src.rpm OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiconfigurational -> reconfiguration OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiconfigurational -> reconfiguration OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 17.0-1.8b838a18 ['18.0-1.o180813.1752.fc29', '18.0-1.o180813.1752'] OpenMolcas.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/OpenMolcas/lib/libmolcas.so libmolcas.so OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/OpenMolcas.csh OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/OpenMolcas.sh OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/OpenMolcas/.molcashome OpenMolcas.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/OpenMolcas/.molcashome OpenMolcas.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/OpenMolcas/.molcasversion OpenMolcas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiconfigurational -> reconfiguration OpenMolcas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiconfigurational -> reconfiguration OpenMolcas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation OpenMolcas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase, co-debase, code base 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dave.love@manchester.ac.uk
--- Comment #2 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- I don't know if this is meant to be marked as taken for review -- it isn't currently. If not, I can do it as I was considering packaging it myself, but probably not for a week or so. Let me know.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %_make_install
License is LGPLv2+ not v3
https://gitlab.com/Molcas/OpenMolcas/blob/master/LICENSE
- Your %changelog entry has the wrong Version-Release:
- Thu Aug 16 2018 Susi Lehtola jussilehtola@fedoraproject.org -
17.0-1.8b838a18
Thanks for the catches. The license is actually LGPLv2 (version 2.1 only), as is clear from license boilerplates (e.g. by running 'licensecheck'). If a license was not explicitly specified in the sources, but rather only the LGPL2 COPYING, distributed here as LICENSE, was included, then the license would be considered as LGPLv2+. (In case of the GPL the license tag would be GPL+). See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/OpenMolcas.spec https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/OpenMolcas-18.0-2.o180813.1752.fc28.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #2)
I don't know if this is meant to be marked as taken for review -- it isn't currently. If not, I can do it as I was considering packaging it myself, but probably not for a week or so. Let me know.
I think it was. Anyway, I'd welcome comaintainers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenMolcas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-3.o180813.1752.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bdea159989
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-3.o180813.1752.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bdea159989
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #9 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- Created attachment 1480580 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1480580&action=edit patch for EPEL support
[BZ won't let me open a new issue against the package.]
Could you build for EPEL? The attached patch makes some minor changes for that.
Also, it might be worth mentioning in the spec why the MPI version isn't supported -- I assume because of requirements for the GA support, which could perhaps be fixed in ga packaging.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #9)
Created attachment 1480580 [details] patch for EPEL support
[BZ won't let me open a new issue against the package.]
Could you build for EPEL? The attached patch makes some minor changes for that.
Cheers. I assume you mean just epel7. [comaintainers welcome]
Also, it might be worth mentioning in the spec why the MPI version isn't supported -- I assume because of requirements for the GA support, which could perhaps be fixed in ga packaging.
Because it looks like it's going to be non-trivial packaging. Getting the base version done was already a bit of a hassle. The MPI versions can be added later on, same for DMRG support via CheMPS2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-4.o180813.1752.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-e7e75a418f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-09-05 23:09:23
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-3.o180813.1752.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-4.o180813.1752.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-e7e75a418f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-5.o180813.1752.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-daa6241f83
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-5.o180813.1752.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-daa6241f83
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-6.o180813.1752.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7dce5eec99
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1617953
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- OpenMolcas-18.0-6.o180813.1752.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7dce5eec99
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com