[Bug 1184600] New: Review Request: python-sep -Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Bug ID: 1184600 Summary: Review Request: python-sep -Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sergio.pasra@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-sep.spec SRPM URL: http://guaix.fis.ucm.es/~spr/fedora/python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: SEP makes available some of the astronomical source extraction and photometry algorithms in Source Extractor as stand-alone functions and classes. These operate directly on in-memory numpy arrays (no FITS files, configuration files, etc). It’s derived directly from (and tested against) the Source Extractor code base. Fedora Account System Username: sergiopr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1159999 (Astronomy-SIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159999 [Bug 1159999] Astronomy SIG - review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dev@der-flo.net Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dev@der-flo.net Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net --- 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 10 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 %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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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
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]: 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 python3-sep [x]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8702699 [-]: %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]: 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: python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-sep-0.2.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm python-sep.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) photometry -> photometer, optometry python-sep.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US photometry -> photometer, optometry python3-sep.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) photometry -> photometer, optometry python3-sep.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US photometry -> photometer, optometry python3-sep.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy python-sep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) photometry -> photometer, optometry python-sep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US photometry -> photometer, optometry 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- python3-sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-numpy rtld(GNU_HASH)
python-sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) numpy python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- python3-sep: python3-sep python3-sep(x86-64)
python-sep: python-sep python-sep(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-sep: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sep.so python3-sep: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/sep.cpython-34m.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sep/sep-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b4baf1e554d984d817df6724652cdcb58ee32ae452ffc3b12b9573209ae5c791 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b4baf1e554d984d817df6724652cdcb58ee32ae452ffc3b12b9573209ae5c791
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1184600 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-sep Short Description: Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python Upstream URL: https://github.com/kbarbary/sep Owners: sergiopr Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184600
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-02-04 02:58:26
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-sep-0.2.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla