Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 2007997 - python-probeinterface: Python package to handle the layout, geometry, and wiring of silicon probes for extracellular electrophysiology experiments
Summary: python-probeinterface: Python package to handle the layout, geometry, and wir...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 2012917
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW fedora-neuro, NeuroFedora
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-09-26 21:13 UTC by Andy Mender
Modified: 2021-12-13 13:56 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-12-11 00:45:21 UTC
Type: Bug

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andy Mender 2021-09-26 21:13:18 UTC
Koji build:
A Python package to handle the layout, geometry, and wiring of silicon probes for extracellular electrophysiology experiments.

Fedora Account System Username: andymenderunix

python-probeinterface is needed as a dependency of python-spikeinterface which will be submitted later.

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2021-09-26 21:14:52 UTC
Ankur, I assigned the review request to you as discussed previously here:

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2021-10-11 15:33:52 UTC
I packaged this up separately before realizing this review was already in progress. I’ve closed my issue (, but please feel free to take a look at my spec file and see if you want to copy any of my tricks ( I managed to work around some of the offline testing issues, and I successfully built the documentation.

Comment 3 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-10-11 15:49:21 UTC
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Ankur, I assigned the review request to you as discussed previously here:

Thanks, sorry I seem to have missed the notification. On my list now.

Comment 6 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-10-18 19:41:33 UTC
I think it looks very good. A few things to discuss before approval:

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- you can use the %pytest macro there
- if possible (and if it doesn't cause font bundling etc.), do you think we
  should generate the sphinx docs and put them in a doc sub

- optional: we should see if we can use the new Python guidelines here, since the older ones will be deprecated in the future:
- optional: we can use the forge macros if you wish:

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2007997-python-
[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
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


rpmlint srpm-unpacked/python-probeinterface.spec srpm/python-probeinterface-0.2.5-1.fc35.src.rpm results/python3-probeinterface-0.2.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
======================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
checks: 31, packages: 3

========================= 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s =========================

^ looks fine

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7d9b7b8587d74b8994b90e5d0bf59b73a7081cce7ea69912168ed00cfaf75276
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d9b7b8587d74b8994b90e5d0bf59b73a7081cce7ea69912168ed00cfaf75276

python3-probeinterface (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2007997
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Java, R, fonts

Comment 7 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) 2021-11-10 20:48:34 UTC
Any updates here, Andy?

Comment 8 Package Review 2021-12-11 00:45:21 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

Comment 9 Ben Beasley 2021-12-13 13:56:41 UTC
Since this ticket is DEADREVIEW, I’ve reopened my newer review request for this package.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2012917 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.