[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? | -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DEFERRED --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-05-27 16:46:07 EDT --- Nothing has still happened, closing the bug as deferred. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-13 02:55:00 EDT --- Upstream replies: It turns out that one of the octopus developers (Xavier Andrade) has decided to try to remove METIS, substituting it by a free alternative (ZOLTAN). We also removed expokit, and as I said qshep is also non-essential. So it may very well be that next release of octopus (unknown date) will be free of license problems. Until a license problem free version is available, octopus cannot be packaged. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #12 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-13 07:37:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) Upstream replies: It turns out that one of the octopus developers (Xavier Andrade) has decided to try to remove METIS, substituting it by a free alternative (ZOLTAN). We also removed expokit, and as I said qshep is also non-essential. So it may very well be that next release of octopus (unknown date) will be free of license problems. That's encouraging. Until a license problem free version is available, octopus cannot be packaged. Or you could try backporting whatever changes they made to remove the non-free code, but that's up to you. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 05:00:03 EDT --- external_libs/expokit is non-free and must be removed from distributed sources unless you can convince its authors to relicense it under a free license. external_libs/metis-4.0 is non-free. external_libs/qshep is non-free as well. Oh my, you are right. This is a showstopper. I'm contacting upstream to see whether they have any plans to migrate to free implementations. Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files? - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License: GPLv2+ Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website. You'd think the developers had their licenses right.. SRPM source file doesn't match upstream: 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-02 06:47:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Is there an automatic tool to check the licenses of the source files? I'm using licensecheck.pl from debian-utils. Perhaps it could be added to fedora-rpmdevtools. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License: GPLv2+ Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. OK. Funny, I based my SPEC on the SRPM available from the Octopus website. You'd think the developers had their licenses right.. See comment #8. SRPM source file doesn't match upstream: 54e00d2eb2af7fbd902876bef32b409e octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz e17887506f2596e1826d2d09bc75214f octopus-3.0.1.tar.gz.srpm Used the one from upstream SRPM. My bad. Maybe ask upstream why they are different? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-01 19:25:24 EDT --- PS. Reviewed bugs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437192 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 You missed the desktop file guidelines. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-01 19:26:56 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=319179) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=319179) octopus-3.0.1 source file license check report -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008-10-01 20:18:45 EDT ---
OK'd items omitted.
- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result
octopus.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f8/9fbfbbed296d4a83448b1549262a7c9a7ae490
../../../../bin/oct-test_mpi
octopus.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id
octopus.i386: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/debug/.build-id
octopus.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/32/6af5072f170e31d82e0f48aab7f5686283d55c
../../../../bin/octopus_mpi
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-cross-section.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-cross-section.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-rsf.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-rsf.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/octopus_mpi.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/octopus_mpi.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-test_mpi.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-test_mpi.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-help.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-help.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/octopus.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/octopus.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-test.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-test.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-center-geom.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-center-geom.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-xyz-anim.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-xyz-anim.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-vibrational.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-vibrational.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-harmonic-spectrum.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-harmonic-spectrum.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-broad.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-broad.debug
octopus.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-oscillator-strength.debug
octopus.i386: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/oct-oscillator-strength.debug
octopus-mpi.i386: W: no-documentation
octopus.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 40, tab: line 1)
octopus-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 20 warnings.
Something has gone wrong here.
%{_libdir}/*
seems to be the culprit.
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
%post
install-info %{_infodir}/octopus.info /dev/null
%preun
install-info --remove octopus /dev/null
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
The tarball contains a number of bundled libraries that have separate
upstreams. You should package them separately and modify (or work with upstream
to modify) octopus to use the external, system-wide packages instead.
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Some files are under GPLv2+ and some (libxc) are under LGPLv3+. There are many
files without licensing information, so please ask upstream to fix that. See
attached log (attachment #319179) from licensecheck for more details.
external_libs/expokit is non-free and must be removed from distributed sources
unless you can convince its authors to relicense it under a free license.
external_libs/metis-4.0 is non-free.
external_libs/qshep is non-free as well.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
License: GPLv2+
Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+
sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-01 20:29:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License: GPLv2+ Should be GPLv3+. IIUC LGPLv3+ libraries can only be linked in if GPLv2+ sources are upgraded to GPLv3. I'll re-check this, but I think I'm correct. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPLCompatibilityMatrix I'm not sure, but I think it's not linking, but distributing libxc as part of octopus (or is that mere aggregation?) that affects the license. However, the license tag could definitely stay at GPLv2+ if you package libxc separately and only link against it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-29 09:51:11 EDT --- Release 3: * Mon Sep 29 2008 Jussi Lehtola - 3.0.1-3 - Branch headers and .a files to -devel. - Branch MPI binaries to MPI package. - Add gcc-gfortran = 4.3 to build reqs. rpmlint output: octopus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation octopus-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation SPECS/octopus.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 38, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus-3.0.1-3.fc9.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008-09-29 10:56:25 EDT ---
Very well, I'll review this one, too. Quick comment: if there are static
libraries in -devel, then the subpackage must have
Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-29 11:25:27 EDT --- Thanks, corrected. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus-3.0.1-4.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint output: octopus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation octopus-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation SPECS/octopus.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 40, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. PS. Reviewed bugs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437192 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 464432] Review Request: octopus - a TDDFT code
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=464432 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-28 18:43:58 EDT --- Release 2: Implemented out-of-tree builds. Spec file at http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus.spec SRPM at http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/octopus-3.0.1-2.fc9.src.rpm rpmlint output: octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libstring_f.a octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/liboct_parser.h octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/xc_funcs.h octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libxc.a octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/string_f.h octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liboct_parser.a octopus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/xc.h octopus.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 46, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
