[Bug 542760] Review Request: mopac7 - Semi-empirical quantum mechanics suite

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=542760


Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi>  2009-12-23 18:56:02 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
mopac7.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mopac7 ['/usr/lib64']
mopac7-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
mopac7-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

Get rid of the rpath.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath

**

You have
 %{_bindir}/%{name}
 %{_bindir}/run_mopac7
in files, better change %{name} to mopac7.

**

Btw, the build process doesn't seem to use f2c at all - gfortran is used to
compile the Fortran stuff.

**

There is no CCOPTIONS variable in the makefiles, drop CCOPTIONS="%{optflags}"
from make. The used flags are already picked up by %configure.

**


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. ~OK
- I think you could do with a few clarifying comments in the %install section.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application.
- Place the %doc in -libs instead of the main package, as the main package
requires the libraries but not vice versa.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages andno general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

-- 
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.