[Bug 670541] Review Request: libxc - Library of exchange and correlation functionals to be used in DFT codes

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jan 23 19:53:09 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=670541

Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |martin.gieseking at uos.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-01-23 14:53:08 EST ---
Thanks for the information and the fixes. The package is almost ready now. As
you mentioned you want to build it for EPEL too (and as a BuildRoot field and a
%clean section are present), you should also clean the buildroot at the
beginning of %install. Everything else looks fine.


$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm
libxc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functionals -> functional,
functional s, functionary
libxc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional,
functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) functionals -> functional,
functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals ->
functional, functional s, functionary
libxc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxc.so.0.0.9
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
libxc-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals ->
functional, functional s, functionary
libxc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

All above warnings can be ignored:
- spelling errors are false positive
- call of exit() should be fixed upstream, no blocker here
- no docs in devel is expected

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
    - LGPLv3+

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ md5sum libxc-1.0.tar.gz*
    4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz
    4a8ef0c8fccc695e65466ec1a8878280  libxc-1.0.tar.gz.1

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
    koji scratch build (f15):
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738376

[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[X] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file...
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[.] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
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