[Bug 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-15 14:27:44 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ab90ba72ee -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e4a1230d0 -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Junghans ---
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #2)
> APPROVED by jussilehtola
Thanks.
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Fixed.
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>
> Changelog is not in predescribed format. Also the comment is wrong: this is
> not the initial import (which would be the git commit message for import),
> but the initial version of the packaging!
Fixed
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
>
> This is an aesthetic issue, but the use of curly brackets is inconsistent:
> %build
> %{cmake}
> %cmake_build
Fixed
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> libecpint-common
>
> As noted above, add this.
Hmm, libecpint depends on libecpint-common not the other way around, so I am
not 100% sure here
> [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
> attached diff).
> See: (this test has no URL)
My mistake, will be same.
> libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary
Fixed
> libecpint-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libecpint -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola ---
There is a number of minor issues. The package has been
APPROVED by jussilehtola
provided the issues below are rectified before import to the Fedora build
system.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
licensecheck reports "Expat license". License is MIT "Modern style with
sublicense",
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
[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", "Expat License". 653 files have unknown
license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
The common package should require -libs for the license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Changelog is not in predescribed format. Also the comment is wrong: this is not
the initial import (which would be the git commit message for import), but the
initial version of the packaging!
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
This is an aesthetic issue, but the use of curly brackets is inconsistent:
%build
%{cmake}
%cmake_build
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[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 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: 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
[Bug 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Susi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||susi.leht...@iki.fi 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 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 1884943] Review Request: libecpint - Efficient evaluation of integrals over ab initio effective core potentials
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Christoph Junghans changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Christoph Junghans --- TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52711831 -- 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
