[Bug 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-11 13:58:01 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||2.3.7-5.fc10 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-11 14:02:16 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-09 12:04:27 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-09 16:43:20 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qd-2.3.7-5.fc9 -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-09 16:44:06 EDT --- qd-2.3.7-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/qd-2.3.7-5.fc10 -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-08 07:02:59 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: qd Short Description: Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F-9 F-10 EL-5 InitialCC: -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-07 18:02:23 EDT --- Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Any reason why you believe the license is GPLv2+? The COPYING file included the rather standard BSD license. (The copyright is even held by UCB.) The actual source files are missing any license statment but README explicitly refers to the COPYING file which contains the BSD text. Generally we'd prefer the source files to include license statements but I don't think the licensing situation is ambiguous. Of course, I could be missing something. I would also comment why you're disabling the debug package, because it's not immediately obvious from looking at the spec. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: c886c96ca8081196089fe00eac74765a43e7500ae27e2e107a7c4f10fa95b4f1 qd-2.3.7.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: qd-static = qd-2.3.7 qd-devel = 2.3.7-4.fc11 qd-devel(x86-64) = 2.3.7-4.fc11 = /bin/sh * %check is present and all tests pass: All 4 tests passed * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * only static libraries are present: They are in the -devel package. -static is provided. * no libtool .la files. -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2009-03-07 18:10:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) I would also comment why you're disabling the debug package, because it's not immediately obvious from looking at the spec. In my experience rpmbuild doesn't grab any debugging information from static libraries; is this not the case? -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-03-07 19:04:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Any reason why you believe the license is GPLv2+? The COPYING file included the rather standard BSD license. Oh my, thanks for noticing. Fixed. Also added a comment about disabling debuginfo due to static library. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-2.3.7-5.fc10.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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-03-07 20:38:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) In my experience rpmbuild doesn't grab any debugging information from static libraries; is this not the case? That is the case, and is why the debug package is disabled in this spec. I was merely asking that this be commented. Anyway, this looks good now; thanks. APPROVED -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2008-12-18 09:21:27
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Er, the spec/%{name} should be qd.spec, not qd-devel.spec. You should however
omit the %files section for the main package and only have one for the devel
subpackage.
Right, since we want to be prepared for having a shared library. Otherwise the
base name would have been qd-devel (as pstreams-devel and a bunch of other
packages).
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-2.3.7-4.fc10.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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325
--- Comment #7 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-14 03:30:05 EDT
---
Er, the spec/%{name} should be qd.spec, not qd-devel.spec. You should however
omit the %files section for the main package and only have one for the devel
subpackage.
--
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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(jussi.leht...@iki | |.fi)| --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2008-12-13 04:06:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) I would posit that this shouldn't go in until we can either get a shared library out of this or at least get some kind of upstream confirmation that you really can't build it that way. You can ship the static librar(y|ies), if you like, in a separate -static package. And the headers should go in a -devel package, as rpmlint dutifully complains. I have contacted upstream about this. It seems that the support to build shared libraries was added in version 2.1, but removed in 2.1.213 with libtool. -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-13 04:13:18 EDT --- The lack of a shared library isn't the blocker (though it would be nice). The issue is, as tibbs says: You can ship the static librar(y|ies), if you like, in a separate -static package. And the headers should go in a -devel package, as rpmlint dutifully complains. -- 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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2008-12-13 04:28:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) The lack of a shared library isn't the blocker (though it would be nice). The issue is, as tibbs says: You can ship the static librar(y|ies), if you like, in a separate -static package. And the headers should go in a -devel package, as rpmlint dutifully complains. Very well. In accordance with the Packaging Guidelines, I packaged everything in qd-devel, which provides qd-static. rpmlint output: qd-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-devel.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-devel-2.3.7-2.fc10.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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325
--- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org 2008-12-13 04:52:09 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #4)
rpmlint output:
qd-devel-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Add a line to the top of your spec:
%define debug_package %{nil}
(Since rpmbuild doesn't get useful debuginfo from static libs.)
--
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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2008-12-13 05:00:43 EDT --- Done. Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-devel.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/qd-devel-2.3.7-3.fc10.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 470325] Review Request: qd - Double-Double and Quad-Double Arithmetic
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=470325 Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kon...@tylerc.org Flag||needinfo?(jussi.leht...@iki ||.fi) -- 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
