https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Bug ID: 1064657 Summary: Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r02/exciting.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r02/exciting-6-2.fc21.... Description: exciting is a full-potential all-electron density-functional-theory (DFT) package implementing the families of linearized augmented planewave (LAPW) methods. Fedora Account System Username: marcindulak
koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6523799
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Hi marcin,
I am interested in reviewing this package but it might be take me sometime to do that. If you do not have "time-related" objections, I can take this package for review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #2 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- Actually i have prepared an unbundled version of exciting BLAS, LAPACK, FFTW, LIBXC, ERF, ARPACK, LBFGSB bundling is removed, with an exception of FoX.
I'm communicating with exciting developers about the FoX (http://exciting-code.org/forum/t-779809/non-standard-format-pretty-print-in-...) - it looks i have have to ask for bundling exception due to this commit that makes exciting crash with upstream FoX: https://github.com/sr76/exciting/commit/f2f97a47d147b2894701a1ac75174cf524b5...
Moreover i removed bundling of http://www.ece.northwestern.edu/~nocedal/lbfgsb.html in a hacky way: by linking to %{python_sitearch}/scipy/optimize/_lbfgsb.so (well, scipy also bundles this).
I will update the spec when receive the final answer about FoX from exciting developers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #3 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/400
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1104289
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289 [Bug 1104289] Review Request: FoX - A Fortran XML Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Bug 1064657 depends on bug 1104289, which changed state.
Bug 1104289 Summary: Review Request: FoXlibf - A Fortran XML Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1192606
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192606 [Bug 1192606] libxc needs rebuilding against gfortran 5.0.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Bug 1064657 depends on bug 1192606, which changed state.
Bug 1192606 Summary: libxc needs rebuilding against gfortran 5.0.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192606
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #4 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- Update:
Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01.new/exciting.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01.new/exciting-7-1....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-7-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for epel7 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11750266
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12224498
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12225273
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12225904
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #10 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- New upstream release. Bundling of lbfgsb reintroduced taking into account the recent changes in Fedora policy.
Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting-10-1.el6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nonamedotc@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Marcin, I will formally taKe over this package review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- marcin - I am very sorry about this delay. I will post a review in the next two days.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- One quick comment -
You can remove %defattr in the spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #15 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- Started a koji scratch build on rawhide - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12947738
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #16 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- nonamedotc's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12947738
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #17 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #14)
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
I think this happens when a SRPM created on EL6 is unpacked on a newer Fedora by koji. I don't see any version mismatch with `cmp`.
---> 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
--->
Licenses: I think we should trust exciting about the license. It is a common case for scientific codes that they include files licensed under various GPL-compatible licenses, and as far as I know GPL eats them all. See discussion here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893
[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!
/etc/profile.d is owned by setup. I'm not sure about the rules whether packages as setup should be explicitly in requires, but I added it anyway.
[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?
I don't think I package any exciting tools that depend on perl. Perl should only be used during %check.
===== 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
Additional changes:
1. removed defattr 2. added armv7hl ppc64le
The exciting executables seem to work properly only on EPEL6 (see tests passing in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12971707 and failures in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12971559). I think this is due to FoXlibf, but this can be addressed later with exciting developers.
Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r02/exciting.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r02/exciting-10-2.fc2...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #18 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- (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
--->
Licenses: I think we should trust exciting about the license. It is a common case for scientific codes that they include files licensed under various GPL-compatible licenses, and as far as I know GPL eats them all. See discussion here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893
My bad! This is my copy-pasting the unupdated version of my review file.
I went through the files listed in licensecheck (~80% of files) and found no problems. I have no issues with this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com ---
- 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
I think this happens when a SRPM created on EL6 is unpacked on a newer Fedora by koji. I don't see any version mismatch with `cmp`.
$ sha256sum exciting.boron-10.tar.gz dl/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz 8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc exciting.boron-10.tar.gz 8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc dl/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz
cmp also produces nothing as you mentioned.
---> This is done.
---> Licensing - done! (see c#18)
---> spec file diffs - I do not see any problems. Koji builds look good to me.
I have nothing else to complain about.
Package APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #20 from marcindulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/exciting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-08c56a2194
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-2016-08c56a2194
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-03-09 10:00:18
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla