https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Bug ID: 1678006 Summary: Review Request: segyio - fast read/write of seismic files in SEG-Y Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jokva@equinor.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://nofile.io/f/E2WPdXySCvp/segyio.spec SRPM URL: https://nofile.io/f/DzRWnepw7Cv/segyio-1.8.3-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: segyio is a fast and practical library for reading and writing seismic data in SEG-Y format. segyio is random access oriented for modern computers with simple read/write primitives on lines.
Segyio is available in debian https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/segyio and from pypi for use in Python https://pypi.org/project/segyio/
Fedora Account System Username: jokva
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
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 --- %package devel Summary: SEG-Y read/write library for seismic processing (development) Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
- Requires should be %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- Why have you added Provides: %{name}-static? It doesn't make sense since the static subpackage is specified afterwards.
- Should be before %description:
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator} %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
- Typo: %{?_smpl_mflags} → %{?_smp_mflags}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
--- Comment #2 from Jørgen Kvalsvik jokva@equinor.com --- Ok, so I've addressed that. Here's the new spec and srpm:
https://nofile.io/f/gdT878nfH0T/segyio.spec https://nofile.io/f/npS5rUy6NHV/segyio-1.8.3-1.fc29.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Build error:
BUILDSTDERR: Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/pytest-runner/: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found! BUILDSTDERR: Couldn't find index page for 'pytest-runner' (maybe misspelled?)
BUILDSTDERR: Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/setuptools-scm/: [Errno -2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found! BUILDSTDERR: Couldn't find index page for 'setuptools_scm' (maybe misspelled?)
Add:
BuildRequires: python3-pytest-runner BuildRequires: python3-setuptools_scm
- Own this directory:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/segyio
%dir %{_datadir}/segyio
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/segyio [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. [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: segyio-static. [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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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 segyio- devel , segyio-static , python3-segyio , segyio-bin , segyio-debuginfo , segyio-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: segyio-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-devel-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-static-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm python3-segyio-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-bin-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-debuginfo-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-debugsource-1.8.3-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm segyio-1.8.3-1.fc30.src.rpm segyio.x86_64: W: no-documentation segyio-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation segyio-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-segyio.x86_64: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
--- Comment #4 from Jørgen Kvalsvik jokva@equinor.com --- spec: https://nofile.io/f/n7okOHMNktm/segyio.spec sprm: https://nofile.io/f/K5swKaWw7Wj/segyio-1.8.3-1.fc29.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- All ok, package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Jørgen Kvalsvik jokva@equinor.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |NEW Assignee|zebob.m@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review+ |needinfo?(jokva@equinor.com | |)
--- Comment #6 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review stalled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Jørgen Kvalsvik jokva@equinor.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jokva@equinor.com | |) |
--- Comment #7 from Jørgen Kvalsvik jokva@equinor.com --- I would say this packaging is out-of-date (many upstream releases since then, with some building modifications), and I am no longer responsible for upstream. I will not follow up on packaging, which means that the package needs a new sponsor and maintainer if this is to continue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678006
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2021-07-25 14:19:34
--- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Jørgen, thanks for the reply. I'll close this ticket as DEADREVIEW, then.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com