Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Summary: Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: terjeros@phys.ntnu.no QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py.spec SRPM: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2690057 Description: The h5py package provides both a high- and low-level interface to the HDF5 library from Python. The low-level interface is intended to be a complete wrapping of the HDF5 API, while the high-level component supports access to HDF5 files, datasets and groups using established Python and NumPy concepts.
A strong emphasis on automatic conversion between Python (Numpy) datatypes and data structures and their HDF5 equivalents vastly simplifies the process of reading and writing data from Python.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josephsmidt@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-12-27 10:54:30 EST --- *** Bug 509658 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-01-13 04:17:27 EST ---
Review of h5py, 12th January: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines YES: It does. - Spec file matches base package name. YES: It does. - Spec has consistant macro usage. YES: It does. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. YES: It does but see comments about eggs below. - License YES: BSD - License field in spec matches YES: - License file included in package YES: LICENSE.txt and licenses/*.txt - Spec in American English YES: It is. - Spec is legible. YES: It is. - Sources match upstream md5sum: YES: but see rpmlint error below. $ md5sum h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch YES: Builds as is in koji. - BuildRequires correct YES: Builds in koji - Spec handles locales/find_lang YES: No locale. - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. YES: Is not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. YES: It does. - Package has a correct %clean section. YES: - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) NO: It has %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
- Package is code or permissible content. YES: - Doc subpackage needed/used. YES: not needed. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. YES: Theyt don't. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun Not relavent. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig Not relavent. - .so files in -devel subpackage. Not relavent. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Not relavent. - .la files are removed. None created.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file It's not. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Koji. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. It does not. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.] It does not. - Package owns all the directories it creates. It does. - No rpmlint output. $ rpmlint SPECS/h5py.spec RPMS/x86_64/h5py-* SRPMS/h5py-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm SPECS/h5py.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/utils.so utils.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_proxy.so _proxy.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5r.so h5r.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_conv.so _conv.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5o.so h5o.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5.so h5.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5l.so h5l.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5a.so h5a.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5f.so h5f.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5s.so h5s.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5p.so h5p.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5g.so h5g.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5z.so h5z.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5t.so h5t.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5fd.so h5fd.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5e.so h5e.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5i.so h5i.so()(64bit) h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5d.so h5d.so()(64bit) h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types, data-types, databases h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
You could split datasets and datatypes into two wordss but I believe both to be on common usage.
The "invalid-url" I do not understand, that URL works just fine? Do you see this with rpmlint?
Issues:
1. You have a buildroot of BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) rather than the normal (?) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
maybe what you have is now permitted? It looks better in someways for sure. Of course it's not needed at all of new Fedoras.
2. Investigate the "invalid-url"
3. There are a lot of "private-shared-object-provides" , these can be removed with the use of %{?filter_provides_in: %filter_provides_in .*/h5py/.*.so} %{?filter_setup}
4. Do you need the "Requires: hdf" since this satisfied by the auto requires to "libhdf5.so.6()(64bit)" I would presume?
5. What's the reason for rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{python_sitearch}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.*.egg-info/
6. Could you add a comment as to why "-fopenmp" has been added to the CFLAGS.
Comments: I looked also at adding this to EPEL5. It seems while you can choose the 1.6 api to hdf you can't easily get around the requirement for python 2.5?
However the package builds fine on EPEL6. Please could it be added to EPEL6 though that is not a requirement for the review. If my python26-numpy review ever makes it to EPEL5 then I will submit a patch for h5py to work with it. I have a user request for this on CentOS 5.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-13 14:11:49 EST --- Thanks!
Updated package:
- fix buildroot - add filter - don't remove egg-info files - remove explicit hdf5 req - build and ship docs as html
Unsure about the -fopenp thingie.
There is a bug in rpmlint (or the google server is a bit funny): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669339
python 2.5 seems to be a hard req. btw: I don't maintain EPEL packages.
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py-1.3.1-3.fc14.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2719548
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-01-23 13:14:28 EST --- I was reading the old review in bug #509658 and there are a comment of items left which I think still need comment.
Is the "open security issue" with lzf addressed?
You say the licensing issues is now resolved I guess because the LZF is an BSD but I still see GPL stuff in lzf/lzf.
Why is this only BSD now and not ""BSD and (BSD or GPLv2+)"?
Stve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #5 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-01-25 09:45:43 EST --- I don't what the "open security issue" is, might have to ping Jason.
Hm, I must recheck the license issue, I did not see any GPL stuff.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-01-25 09:55:48 EST --- Honestly I can't remember what it was. I think there was an issue with decompression of large files, probably fixed with 1.4.
In any case, bundling libraries is expressly forbidden without an exemption these days, so that point is academic. Bundling lzf is right out anyway.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-01-25 10:07:06 EST ---
In any case, bundling libraries is expressly forbidden without an exemption these days, so that point is academic. Bundling lzf is right out anyway.
http://oldhome.schmorp.de/marc/liblzf.html
looks to be the upstream.
Steve.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |675798
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Bug 665853 depends on bug 675798, which changed state.
Bug 675798 Summary: Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675798
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA Resolution| |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-05-22 17:24:52 EDT --- Created attachment 500306 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=500306 Patch to .spec to use system provided liblzf.
Hi, This is patch your last .spec file that allows the system liblzf to be used rather than the included one.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #500306|Patch to .spec to use |Patch to h5py to use system description|system provided liblzf. |provided liblzf.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #9 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-05-22 17:26:56 EDT --- Created attachment 500307 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=500307 Patch to .spec to use system provided liblzf.
This is the patch to the .spec file. The previous patch was the patch the h5py tar ball its self.
Steve.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-05-23 08:43:13 EDT --- Thanks Steve, patches applied.
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/h5py/h5py-1.3.1-4.fc14.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3087314
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-06-17 15:16:31 EDT ---
Builds in mock f15 x86_64.
rpmlint results: $ rpmlint ./h5py.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm ./h5py.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
this is clean, known problem with googlecode.
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
- Spec file matches base package name. Yes named after tar ball. - Spec has consistant macro usage. They are. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. Yes. - License BSD - License field in spec matches License looks to be consistantly BSD - License file included in package Yes license directory included. - Spec in American English yes - Spec is legible. yes - Sources match upstream md5sum: $ md5sum h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch It odes not - BuildRequires correct Look good and passes mock - Spec handles locales/find_lang Not important. - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. Not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. Fine - Package has a correct %clean section. Fine - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. Yes - Doc subpackage needed/used. Not needed - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. Thet don't
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Not needed. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun Not Needed. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig Not Needed. - .so files in -devel subpackage. Not Needed. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Not Needed. - .la files are removed. Not Needed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file Not Needed. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. Mock - Package has no duplicate files in %files. No - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. It does not - Package owns all the directories it creates. It does. - No rpmlint output. See above.
- final provides and requires are sane: They are indeed.
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. Yes - Should build on all supported archs Not checked but probablyu - Should function as described. %checks pass - Should have sane scriptlets. None - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. Not relavent.
- Should package latest version 1.3.1 is newest except for a beta.
Issues: None
Package APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2011-07-10 05:41:07 EDT --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: h5py Short Description: A Python interface to the HDF5 library Owners: terjeros Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-07-10 08:57:54 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Steve, in the future, please take ownership of review bugs you're working on. Thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #14 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-07-10 21:46:22 EDT ---
Steve, in the future, please take ownership of review bugs you're working on. Thanks!
Yes of course, just an omission , thanks.
Steve
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch 2011-08-14 05:52:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
btw: I don't maintain EPEL packages.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: h5py New Branches: el6 Owners: stevetraylen
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-14 07:25:44 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-15 07:47:28 EDT --- h5py-1.3.1-6.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/h5py-1.3.1-6.el6
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-16 16:54:24 EDT --- h5py-1.3.1-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-31 18:54:25 EDT --- h5py-1.3.1-6.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |h5py-1.3.1-6.el6 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-08-31 18:54:34
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org