[Bug 608332] Review Request: rootplot - Plots ROOT data with matplotlib

Thu Nov 18 16:26:42 UTC 2010

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=608332

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-11-18 11:26:41 EST ---
Actually rpmlint output is
rootplot.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
rootplot.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matplotlib -> matelote,
matrilocal, marplot
rootplot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyROOT -> pyrostat,
pyrope, pyrone
rootplot.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matplotlib ->
matelote, matrilocal, marplot
rootplot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rootplot
rootplot.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tree2hists
rootplot.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matplotlib -> matelote,
matrilocal, marplot
rootplot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyROOT -> pyrostat,
pyrope, pyrone
rootplot.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matplotlib -> matelote,
matrilocal, marplot
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

All of these are OK, though. The explicit lib dependency is only relevant in
binary packages, where RPM automatically adds dependencies on the necessary
shared libraries.

(In reply to comment #1)
> So the remaining issues are:
> 
> - Use macros rather than vars consistently (e.g. buildroot).

Actually, the spec file does not mix styles. The only thing this applies is
using $RPM_OPT_FLAGS vs %{optflags} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs %{buildroot}. The
choice between these is a matter of personal preference.

> - You can use "python" directly.

Yes, there's not much sense in using macros for standard stuff, such as
%{__rm},  %{__mv}, %{__mkdir}, %{__mkdir_p} and so on even if they are
implemented in RPM. Although, using them is not forbidden.

> - The latest upstream version is 2.2.
> - Use %{python_sitelib}/root2matplotlib etc. so that you do not own all of
> sitelib.

This is not a problem per se, the rootplot package only ends up owning the
directories that are in %{python_sitelib} *in the build root*.

What ends up being owned by
 %{python_sitelib}/*
is (on F14)
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/root2matplotlib
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rootplot-1.1-py2.7.egg-info
 /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rootplot_scripts

Still, IMHO using wildcards when they are not absolutely necessary is a bit of
bad style; for instance you won't notice if e.g. egg-info isn't built for some
reason. I highly recommend being more verbose, i.e. using
 %{python_sitelib}/root2matplotlib/
 %{python_sitelib}/rootplot_scripts/
 %{python_sitelib}/rootplot-%{version}-py*.egg-info
instead of the needlessly general wildcard glob.

- Patch0 is missing a comment in the spec file. Please document its purpose,
e.g.

# Patch to remove shbangs from Python library
Patch0:         rootplot-rm-shbangs.patch

- I'm not sure why you want to use the conditionals in

%if ! (0%{?fedora} > 12 || 0%{?rhel} > 5)
%{!?python_sitelib: %global python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
%endif

I'd scrap the %if stuff altogether.

***

Review:

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
- License is MIT Modern style with sublicense
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
016f11836fb3764dd89dd5f0c290816b  rootplot-1.1.tar.gz
016f11836fb3764dd89dd5f0c290816b  ../SOURCES/rootplot-1.1.tar.gz

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. ~OK
- Maybe add PKG-INFO to %doc?

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK
- No license texts in the tarball.

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
EPEL: Clean section exists. OK
EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A

**

Please tend to the issues reported above before import to git. Especially
update to newest upstream as instructed by Michael in comment #2, and check
that running the examples work.

This package has been

APPROVED

-- 
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.