[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc1 |gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc2 |9 |0 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 |gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc1 ||9 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-05-20 13:05:10 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc19 -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc20 -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.el6 -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #18 from marcindulak --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gpaw-setups Short Description: Atomic GPAW setups Owners: marcindulak Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #17 from marcindulak --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #16) > (In reply to marcindulak from comment #15) > > (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #14) > > > IIRC the Fedora policy is that if you import from another public > > > repository > > > for Fedora, you can keep the old changelog. Here, it doesn't seem relevant > > > > gpaw-setups are in a public repository: > > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/dtufys/Fedora_19/noarch/ it's the opensuse build system: https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:dtufys > > Well, if you can call that a repository. It's mainly related to e.g. Dag > Wieer's repo, or nowadays rpmfusion. Anyway, this is academic discussion; I > just find it much clearer in this case to start the changelog from scratch. > If you insist on keeping the old recors, just be sure it's crystal clear > which version was packaged for inclusion in Fedora. I'm OK with discarding the old changelog in this case because i think this is the only gpaw-setups.spec existing online (if we ignore your review request). -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #16 from Susi Lehtola --- (In reply to marcindulak from comment #15) > (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #14) > > IIRC the Fedora policy is that if you import from another public repository > > for Fedora, you can keep the old changelog. Here, it doesn't seem relevant > > gpaw-setups are in a public repository: > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/dtufys/Fedora_19/noarch/ Well, if you can call that a repository. It's mainly related to e.g. Dag Wieer's repo, or nowadays rpmfusion. Anyway, this is academic discussion; I just find it much clearer in this case to start the changelog from scratch. If you insist on keeping the old recors, just be sure it's crystal clear which version was packaged for inclusion in Fedora. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #15 from marcindulak --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #14) > (In reply to marcindulak from comment #13) > > From my perspective i would prefer to keep also the old changelog, for the > > purpose of showing the real origin of the spec. > > ... but that was originally your spec, just from many years ago.. so there > are no author > > IIRC the Fedora policy is that if you import from another public repository > for Fedora, you can keep the old changelog. Here, it doesn't seem relevant gpaw-setups are in a public repository: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/dtufys/Fedora_19/noarch/ > > > I took the LICENSE from gpaw. We don't maintain a separate LICENSE file for > > setups. > > That's OK as well. > > ** > > The %description is not OK. Remove the \ character. OK > > You can do this change upon git import. This package has been > > APPROVED. thanks -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Susi Lehtola --- (In reply to marcindulak from comment #13) > From my perspective i would prefer to keep also the old changelog, for the > purpose of showing the real origin of the spec. ... but that was originally your spec, just from many years ago.. so there are no author IIRC the Fedora policy is that if you import from another public repository for Fedora, you can keep the old changelog. Here, it doesn't seem relevant > I took the LICENSE from gpaw. We don't maintain a separate LICENSE file for > setups. That's OK as well. ** The %description is not OK. Remove the \ character. You can do this change upon git import. This package has been APPROVED. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #13 from marcindulak --- (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #12) > (In reply to marcindulak from comment #10) > > I have updated it in-place (see comment #5). > > Please respect Fedora review guidelines. > > You need to update the revision tag and make relevant entries into the > changelog. OK. Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r02/gpaw-setups.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r02/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-2.fc21.src.rpm From my perspective i would prefer to keep also the old changelog, for the purpose of showing the real origin of the spec. I took the LICENSE from gpaw. We don't maintain a separate LICENSE file for setups. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #12 from Susi Lehtola --- (In reply to marcindulak from comment #10) > I have updated it in-place (see comment #5). Please respect Fedora review guidelines. You need to update the revision tag and make relevant entries into the changelog. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #11 from Susi Lehtola --- Also, the new upstream tarballs contain LICENSE and COPYING, both of which contain the GPLv3 license text. The contents of LICENSE should be similar to the one in GPAW, i.e. a brief statement of what license the setups are distributed under. You should include both files, in case upstream decides to put in a saner version of LICENSE. Per Fedora policy, inclusion of some version of the GPL without explicit statement of the licensing means that the software is licensed under any version of the GPL (tag GPL+). -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #10 from marcindulak --- I have updated it in-place (see comment #5). -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #9 from Susi Lehtola --- Where's the new spec file? -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #8 from marcindulak --- The LICENSE file is now included, and the question of bundling resolved. Please continue with the review. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #7 from marcindulak --- this is vdw data file -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #6 from Susi Lehtola --- Also, I'm not quite sure what the phi-0.500-1.000-20.000-21-201.pckl file is doing. To me it seems a random file, and probably it shouldn't even be in the tarball... -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #5 from marcindulak --- The line length fixed without increasing the release number of the spec. Upstream notified: https://trac.fysik.dtu.dk/projects/gpaw/ticket/253 Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r01/gpaw-setups.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r01/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-1.fc21.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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070
--- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
= MUST items =
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.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- No license is given in the tarball. Please ask upstream to specify the
license.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
- Fix the description, the line is too long.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[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
= 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-1.fc20.src.rpm
gpaw-setups.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C GPAW setups. A setup is to
the PAW method what a pseudo-potential is to the pseudo-potential method.
gpaw-setups.noarch: W: no-documentation
gpaw-setups.src: E: description-line-too-long C
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|susi.leht...@iki.fi Flags||fedora-review? -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #3 from marcindulak --- OK now. Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r01/gpaw-setups.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/gpaw-setups/r01/gpaw-setups-0.9.11271-1.fc21.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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola --- Please clean up the changelog, since this package hasn't been in any repository. Also, remove the use of the upstream_svn macro, since it's only used on the Version line. The svn snapshot revision is part of the upstream version tag. The summary could also be improved, instead of "GPAW setups" you can put in "Atomic GPAW setups", as in the upstream page. -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1087812 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087812 [Bug 1087812] Review Request: gpaw - A grid-based real-space PAW method DFT code -- 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
[Bug 1090070] Review Request: gpaw-setups - GPAW setups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090070 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||983608 (gpaw) CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi --- Comment #1 from marcindulak --- *** Bug 983614 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983608 [Bug 983608] Review Request: gpaw - A density-functional theory code based on the PAW method -- 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
