[Bug 530568] Review Request: ghmm - A library with data structures and algorithms for Hidden Markov Models

Fri Oct 23 16:21:57 UTC 2009

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=530568

Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |tomspur at fedoraproject.org
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tomspur at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur at fedoraproject.org>  2009-10-23 12:21:56 EDT ---
Currently the tests are failing because the pythonpath are wrong...

with PYTHONPATH=$(PYTHONPATH)+":$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitearch} "
LD_LIBRARY_PA TH=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ghmm  make check
it's a bit closer to success, but now there are IO warnings:
I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0"
.I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0"
I/O warning : failed to load external entity "/usr/share/ghmm/ghmm.dtd.1.0"

Don't know where they try to load that file. Maybe you have more luck ;)

About static libraries:

Ok, but in the guidelines stands "In general, packagers are strongly encouraged
not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists.". Don't know, if
this is a blocker, I need to ask someone else ;)

>You can export CFLAGS in the %configure line with 
>CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" %configure --enable-gsl --enable-experimental
>--enable-unsupported

Sorry, my fault %configure already exports exactly this CFLAGS, see:
$ rpm --eval %configure

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [!] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

It is in %{name}-3.spec (probably you won't upload it like this, just as a
backup solution, but anyway...).

 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: 
       [] devel/i386 
       [] devel/x86_64
       [] F11/i386 
       [x] F11/x86_64
 [] Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ghmm.spec ghmm-0.7-3.svn2286.fc11.src.rpm x86_64/ghmm-*
ghmm.spec:94: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e 's|$(PYTHON) setup.py
install.*$|$(PYTHON) setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}|' \
ghmm.src:94: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e 's|$(PYTHON) setup.py
install.*$|$(PYTHON) setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}|' \
ghmm.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libghmm.so.1.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
ghmm.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/ghmm-0.7/AUTHORS
ghmm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghmm-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings

- The buildroot-usage is ok, shared-lib-calls-exit is notified upstream as
stated in spec file.

- spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/ghmm-0.7/AUTHORS

- And AUTHORS is non-utf8, please convert…
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingTricks#Convert_encoding_to_UTF-8

 [x] Buildroot is correct
     (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.

Some files have no license header, upstream notified as stated in spec file

 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: LGPLv2+
 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: 5ff2ec84ab3e3877724d332e86fdb88d
     Build source:    24d1829f2562d04115b7f028e0399f0f
But a full diff is clean, this results because the source needed to be
generated and timestamps could differ...
ok

 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [!] Permissions on files are set properly.
see rpmlint output

 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
     One revision behind trunk, commit is not useful, ok.
 [-] 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=1764745
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.

______________________________

issues:
- wait for answer about static libs
- spurious-executable, non-utf-8 > reduce rpmlint output.
- rename spec file to %{name}.spec
- maybe find a way for building the test suite… :(
- delete CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" again :(((

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.