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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta(a)gmail.com 2006-12-26 04:23 EST ------- Updated srpm and spec: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/ScientificPython/Scientif... http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/ScientificPython/Scientif... Changelog * Mon Dec 25 2006 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.6-3 - Add tk and qt subpackages - Add bsp and mpi subpackages - Requires clean-ups for all subpackages - Patch to correctly locate netcdf.a and netcdf.h * Mon Dec 25 2006 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.6-2 - Add docs subpackage * Sun Dec 24 2006 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.6-1 - Initial ScientificPython Package -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta(a)gmail.com 2006-12-27 15:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) I'll clean up the descriptive tag crap before I submit. No, its the other way around. Subpackages depend on the main package. I broke these out as sub-packages specifically because they drag in additional requirements which may or may not be needed and as a result they should be optional. This is a codebase aimed at people writing homebrew scientific simulation code, not an end-user application. I expect everyone using this to have enough grey matter to look for subpackages as needed. I've no desire to delibrately force all subpackages to install dragging in tk and qt and openmpi on every system, systems which be delibrately streamlined for batched scientific computing. You'll notice this sort of thing is already done for python-matplotlib and python-matplotlib-tk so I'm not setting a precendent here. Crap thats suppose to be in -BSP subpackage, I missed it when I split off BSP. I'm on the fence about the BSP stuff in general because libBSP is not available in Fedora yet. I'm not even sure what the licensing conditions on libBSP are. The only reason I'm including the BSP python modules at all is because ScientificPython includes a virtual BSP utility which allows you to simulate the use of the BSP protocal on a single processor without the need of libBSP. Cute, but I'm not sure how useful packaging that actually is. Since I've no experience with libBSP installs yet I wasn't going to hold up packaging ScientificPython for this optional functionality. I'm primarily interested in the provided netCDF support, and secondarily the mpi support. I probably need to add a README.Fedora to the -bsp subpackage stating that the libBSP support isn't available yet. -jef -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au 2006-12-28 05:58 EST ------- I'll review it -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au 2006-12-28 06:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) Beware in rawhide, it will be usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/Scientific/BSP/Console.py -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au 2006-12-28 07:15 EST ------- # for the qt package Requires: pyQt The real name is PyQt is not yum won't be able to find that dependency :) -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta(a)gmail.com 2006-12-28 12:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) No, I'm not thrilled at using the wiki as the primary source of information. If you want to make a scientific computing wiki section that provides more expansive information across the spectrum of available software tools... go right ahead. But my primary concern is to provide the necessary information in the packaging documentation for this package. Other packages already use README.Fedora files to document Fedora specific changes. If you have suggestions on what I should be including in a README.Fedora file, I'll do that. But I'm not going to try to divide my time between the package CVS and the wiki for package specific documentation. Then No impipython cannot be in /usr/bin/ because you still have to set the number of processors to use with mpirun by hand. There is no way around it, the script is clearly a trivial reference script. I'm not going to work on enhancing this script into a generally useful executable as part of downstream packaging activity. I'm not interested in participating in any coordinated SIG activities at this point. -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah(a)yahoo.com.au 2006-12-30 06:57 EST ------- MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint's output isn' clean but can be ignored, since CeCILL is a free software license, explicitly compatible with the GNU GPL. http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (CeCill) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: 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. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as Licence - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used APPROVED -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta(a)gmail.com 2006-12-31 01:06 EST ------- Well I'm an idiot. failed to build on 64bit. I hard coded /usr/lib/ into my patch for the netcdf library location. I'll need to fix that so it catches /usr/lib64/ if its applicable. -jef -- 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.

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: ScientificPython - a collection of Python modules that are useful for scientific computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220766 terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no ------- Additional Comments From terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no 2007-01-01 17:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) Thanks for the great work Jef, would you push this package for FC6 too? -- 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.