[Bug 665853] Review Request: h5py - A Python interface to the HDF5 library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 13 09:17:28 UTC 2011
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=665853
Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen at cern.ch> 2011-01-13 04:17:27 EST ---
Review of h5py, 12th January:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665853
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
YES: It does.
- Spec file matches base package name.
YES: It does.
- Spec has consistant macro usage.
YES: It does.
- Meets Packaging Guidelines.
YES: It does but see comments about eggs below.
- License
YES: BSD
- License field in spec matches
YES:
- License file included in package
YES: LICENSE.txt and licenses/*.txt
- Spec in American English
YES: It is.
- Spec is legible.
YES: It is.
- Sources match upstream md5sum:
YES: but see rpmlint error below.
$ md5sum h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
cfef84992d33910a06371dc35becb71b ../SOURCES/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch
YES: Builds as is in koji.
- BuildRequires correct
YES: Builds in koji
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
YES: No locale.
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
YES: Is not relocatable.
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
YES: It does.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
YES:
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
NO:
It has %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
- Package is code or permissible content.
YES:
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
YES: not needed.
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
YES: Theyt don't.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
Not relavent.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
Not relavent.
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Not relavent.
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
Not relavent.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Not relavent.
- .la files are removed.
None created.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
It's not.
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
Koji.
- Package has no duplicate files in %files.
It does not.
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.]
It does not.
- Package owns all the directories it creates.
It does.
- No rpmlint output.
$ rpmlint SPECS/h5py.spec RPMS/x86_64/h5py-* SRPMS/h5py-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
SPECS/h5py.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets,
data-sets, databases
h5py.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types,
data-types, databases
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/utils.so utils.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_proxy.so _proxy.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5r.so h5r.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/_conv.so _conv.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5o.so h5o.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5.so h5.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5l.so h5l.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5a.so h5a.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5f.so h5f.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5s.so h5s.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5p.so h5p.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5g.so h5g.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5z.so h5z.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5t.so h5t.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5fd.so h5fd.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5e.so h5e.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5i.so h5i.so()(64bit)
h5py.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/h5py/h5d.so h5d.so()(64bit)
h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets,
data-sets, databases
h5py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> data types,
data-types, databases
h5py.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://h5py.googlecode.com/files/h5py-1.3.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 24 warnings.
You could split datasets and datatypes into two wordss but I believe both to be
on common usage.
The "invalid-url" I do not understand, that URL works just fine? Do you see
this with rpmlint?
Issues:
1. You have a buildroot of
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
rather than the normal (?)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
maybe what you have is now permitted? It looks better in someways for sure.
Of course it's not needed at all of new Fedoras.
2. Investigate the "invalid-url"
3. There are a lot of "private-shared-object-provides" , these can be removed
with the use of
%{?filter_provides_in: %filter_provides_in .*/h5py/.*\.so}
%{?filter_setup}
4. Do you need the "Requires: hdf" since this satisfied by the auto requires to
"libhdf5.so.6()(64bit)"
I would presume?
5. What's the reason for
rm -rf %{buildroot}/%{python_sitearch}/%{name}-%{version}-py2.*.egg-info/
6. Could you add a comment as to why "-fopenmp" has been added to the CFLAGS.
Comments:
I looked also at adding this to EPEL5. It seems while you can choose the 1.6
api to hdf you can't easily
get around the requirement for python 2.5?
However the package builds fine on EPEL6. Please could it be added to EPEL6
though that is not
a requirement for the review. If my python26-numpy review ever makes it to
EPEL5 then I will
submit a patch for h5py to work with it. I have a user request for this on
CentOS 5.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list