[Bug 190247] Review Request: PyX - Python graphics package

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Apr 30 04:53:03 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: PyX - Python graphics package


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190247


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-30 00:52 EST -------
FYI, theres an open ticket for the mkhowto issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177349

PyChart is working around it by including a copy of Python's Doc directory.  I
see no problems with simply shipping the formatted manual from upstream, but you
should probably treat it as any other upstream source and provide a full URL.

Issues:
The build fails on x86_64 (both FC5 and development):
gcc -pthread -shared -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.4/pyx/pykpathsea/pykpathsea.o -lkpathsea -o
build/lib.linux-x86_64-2.4/pyx/pykpathsea/_pykpathsea.so
/usr/bin/ld:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.0/../../../../lib64/libkpathsea.a(tex-file.o):
relocation R_X86_64_32S against `kpse_format_info' can not be used when making a
shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.0/../../../../lib64/libkpathsea.a: could
not read symbols: Bad value
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.12911 (%build)

I'm afraid I have no idea at all what that means, except for "recompile with
-fPIC", and -fPIC already on all of the gcc command lines so I assume it's
complaining about /usr/lib644/libkpathsea.a.  A quick search leads to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=150085.

Anyway, it builds fine on i386, so you'll need to ExcludeArch: x86_64 at least
(no way to test PPC, sorry) and then open a bug on the failed x86_64 build and
have it block FE-ExcludeArch-x64 (and have 150085 block it).

rpmlint complains:
E: PyX non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pyx/graph/axis/tick.py 0644
(and 41 additional complaints about other files)

These files all contain #!/blah/python lines.  Those scripts aren't intended to
be executable, so those shebang lines need to be removed.  Note that they aren't
consistent; graph/axis/timeaxis.py is the only .py file not to have such a line.
 This is the only blocker that I can see.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible and included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   bfab7bbc4f3442c946f489133df515f0  manual.pdf
   bfab7bbc4f3442c946f489133df515f0  manual.pdf-srpm
   5e751cef8d62774a6fc659cc9a03c231  PyX-0.8.1.tar.gz
   5e751cef8d62774a6fc659cc9a03c231  PyX-0.8.1.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
O package builds in mock (development, i386) but fails on x86_64.
X rpmlint complains about errant shebang lines in all but one .py file.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* shared libraries are present, but internal to python so no need to call ldconfig.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* .pyo files are properly %ghosted.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite.
* code, not content.
* documentation is not exactly small, but not large enough that a -docs
subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list