+0
I checked the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files, as well as the
signatures. All these looked good. I checked that there did not appear
to be in binaries in the distribution. I also checked for all of the
source files having appropriate Apache headers.
Issues I saw:
* There is one source file that's missing a header,
./src/test/test_common.cc. This should be fixed but it can be done
subsequent to the release.
* I could not get the system to build. When I ran ./configure it said
"configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function" I could not
find a package for openblas, and when I downloaded the source for that
and tried to build it said I needed a fortran compiler. That's when I
bailed out.
I am voting +0 because I don't think the build issue is sufficient to
block the release. But if I had trouble building I suspect others will
as well. If people can't build your software they are much less likely
to use it. So I think it would be in your best interest to resolve the
build issue soon.
If there are simple steps to resolve the build issue then documenting
them in the README would be very helpful. For example pointers to where
a binary version of openblas can be obtained, if such a place exists
(and any other libraries not readily obtainable by yum or apt-get). If
openblas must be built then some help on how to do so (hopefully without
installing a fortran compiler) would be good.
Other miscellaneous advice:
* It would be very helpful to have an Apache Rat target in your
makefile. Rat gives you a quick way to check for file missing licenses
and some other issues. I had to do it by hand this time.
Alan.
zhaojing <mailto:zhaoj...@comp.nus.edu.sg>
September 23, 2015 at 2:25
+1
