https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #17 from marcindulak <marcin.du...@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.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review