[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878 --- Comment #6 from Jos de Kloe --- Thanks for your work. I only removed objects.inv because rpmlint complained about it. If the presence of this file is not a problem, and even desired, then I'll skip the removal and add an rpmlint exception for it. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- Okay, that looks good. I have one final suggestion, which you are free to ignore: do not remove objects.inv. That file is used by sphinx to create cross-links between documentation for different modules. If some other python module someday wants to refer to the eccodes documentation, it will need objects.inv to do so. Of course, there may not be any such python module, so I'm leaving this up to you. This package is 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878
--- Comment #4 from Jos de Kloe ---
Thanks for being thorough as well!
My next attempt is here:
Spec URL: http://www.jdekloe.nl/Fedora/python-eccodes-rev2/python-eccodes.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.jdekloe.nl/Fedora/python-eccodes-rev2/python-eccodes-0.9.7-1.fc31.src.rpm
My responses to your issues are:
1. License file is missing. Add this to %files: %license LICENSE
done
2. The __provides_exclude_from setting at the top of the spec file is not
necessary. RPM already filters out that directory.
removed
3. The formatting of %_description seems odd.
corrected
4. As Emanuele pointed out, "BuildRequires: eccodes" is not necessary.
removed
5. Remove "Requires: eccodes" from the python3 package.
removed
6. Do not use the %{__mv} and %{__rm} macros.
corrected
7. The mv command in %install does not work on 32-bit platforms...
I think it would be better to patch setup.py so that it installs into the
architecture-specific directory in the first place.
I patched the setup file
8. Have you thought about using the pyproject macros? See
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros. At least, the %tox
macro could be used in %check.
I tried it for %check, but could not get %tox to work.
I am not familiar with tox, but it seems that the tox config files do not yet
account for python version 3.8 as used in rawhide.
9. Have you considered building the documentation with sphinx?
added sphinx documentaiton generation
10. Version 0.9.5 is not the latest version. Version 0.9.7 has been released.
moved to the latest release.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= ISSUES =
1. License file is missing. Add this to %files: %license LICENSE
2. The __provides_exclude_from setting at the top of the spec file is not
necessary. RPM already filters out that directory.
3. The formatting of %_description seems odd. Why a short line between two
longer lines? Why is there a backtick at the beginning of the second line?
Wouldn't it look more natural if the lines were flowed like this?
%global _description \
Python 3 interface to encode and decode GRIB and BUFR files via the \
ECMWF ecCodes library. It allows reading and writing of GRIB 1 and 2 \
files and BUFR 3 and 4 files.
4. As Emanuele pointed out, "BuildRequires: eccodes" is not necessary.
5. Remove "Requires: eccodes" from the python3 package. Library dependencies
must not be specified manually like this. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires
Note that the automatic dependency generator already generates a dependency
similar to:
Requires: libeccodes.so.0.1()(64bit)
6. Do not use the %{__mv} and %{__rm} macros. Just invoke mv and rm directly.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros
7. The mv command in %install does not work on 32-bit platforms:
mv: cannot move '%{buildroot}/usr/lib' to a subdirectory of itself,
'%{buildroto}/usr/lib/lib'.
If you want to use this approach, you should execute the mv only inside a
conditional that checks for 64-bit platforms or %{_libdir} != "/usr/lib";
e.g.,
%if 0%{?__isa_bit} == 64
...
%endif
I think it would be better to patch setup.py so that it installs into the
architecture-specific directory in the first place.
8. Have you thought about using the pyproject macros? See
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros. At least, the %tox
macro could be used in %check.
9. Have you considered building the documentation with sphinx?
10. Version 0.9.5 is not the latest version. Version 0.9.7 has been released.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
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.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1808878-python-
eccodes/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]:
[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808878] Review Request:python-eccodes a Python interface to the ecCodes GRIB and BUFR decoder/encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808878 Emanuele Di Giacomo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emanu...@digiacomo.cc --- Comment #1 from Emanuele Di Giacomo --- First of all, thank you for the submission, I extensively use this library and an official package will be very useful. I have tried the package and run some test scripts on Fedora 31 and everything works fine. Some notes: * eccodes-devel requires eccodes, then I think that "BuildRequires: eccodes" can be removed. * python-eccodes >= 0.9.5 requires at least eccodes 2.16.0, otherwise the following exception is thrown: > AttributeError: function/symbol 'codes_bufr_extract_headers_malloc' not found > in library 'libeccodes.so.0.1': /lib64/libeccodes.so.0.1: undefined symbol: > codes_bufr_extract_headers_malloc * From python.eccodes 0.9.4, the module gribapi checks the eccodes version and prints a warning if it's lower than the recommended one (see gribapi/__init__.py): - python-eccodes 0.9.4 requires at least eccodes 2.15.0 - python-eccodes 0.9.5 requires at least eccodes 2.16.0 * python-eccodes 0.9.3 is the most recent version of python-eccodes that is built successfully on Fedora 30, CentOS 7 and CentOS 8 (eccodes 2.14), Then, the recommended version could be made explicit in the spec file, e.g. for python-eccodes 0.9.5 it could be: BuildRequires: eccodes-devel >= 2.16.0 Requires: eccodes >= 2.16.0 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
