[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-06-11 22:56:56 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- mpsolve-3.1.8-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-dd910447e5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-dd910447e5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dd910447e5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-dd910447e5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dd910447e5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mpsolve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James --- Thank you, Erich. Let me know if you need more reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #8 from Erich Eickmeyer --- Hi Jerry, I feel as though you justified everything, even though I don't quite understand it. This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|er...@ericheickmeyer.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- Erich, you should have reviewer privileges now. If you feel comfortable acting in the role of reviewer for this bug, then please proceed. If you don't, please let me know and I will get somebody else to do the full review. Thank you for what you have done so far. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- See https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8963 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James --- Yes, you have. Okay, let's get the attention of somebody who can fix things for you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Have you been sponsored into the packager group? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #3 from Erich Eickmeyer --- > If you are going to sign on as the official reviewer here, then up top where > it says "Assignee", click on the "take" button. > Go to the right of that where it says "Flags", and click on "set flags", then > change the fedora-review flag to "?" to mark the > review as in progress. You will change that to "+" when you think the > package should be approved. At the bottom, find "Status" > and change it from "NEW" to "ASSIGNED". If you already knew all this, pardon > me for mansplaining. Yep, I knew all of this, but it simply won't let me. Not sure why. Bugzilla is... bugizlla. Other than that, I feel like you justified everything, but I don't feel qualified to approve this complex of a package. I guess since I've done most of the legwork, someone more qualified will have a ton less to do. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Thanks for the review, Erich.
(In reply to Erich Eickmeyer from comment #1)
> I have found the following (possible) issues:
>
> - mpsolve-libs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc
> /usr/lib64/libmps-fortran.so.0.0.1
Yes, that's the fortran interface, and it doesn't need the C library. The
resulting shared object doesn't have any unresolved symbols, which is evidence
that it really doesn't need libc.
> * I'm not 100% sure if this is a false-positive, but it was found by RPM
> lint.
> - mpsolve.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 141: Possible unexpanded
> macro in: Requires: octave(api) = %{octave_api}
I'm not sure what to do about this. The octave_api macro is apparently not
defined when the source RPM is created. However, it is defined at build time.
After doing a Rawhide build, for example:
$ rpm -q --requires -p octave-mpsolve-3.1.8-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
...
octave(api) = api-v53
...
So I don't think this is an actual problem.
> * Again, not 100% positive on this one here.
> - Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mpsolve-
> libs , mpsolve-devel , xmpsolve , python3-mpsolve , octave-mpsolve
> * This is a spot where I'm not 100% confident in what's going on here.
> From what I can see, there are spots where this is happening?
This is kind of a complex package. It probably wasn't fair of me to ask you to
review it. There is a library (which is actually the only part I really need),
there are command line tools, a GUI, and interfaces to the library from octave
and python. All of these have to go into separate subpackages, to manage the
dependencies. When a package has both a library and one or more binaries
linked to that library, two forms of organization are common:
- Make the main package contain the library and a subpackage contain the
binaries. You might have a package named libfoo, for example, and the binaries
go into libfoo-tools.
- Make the main package contain the binaries and a subpackage contain the
library. You might have a package named foo, for example, and the library goes
into foo-libs.
I have chosen the second approach in this case, because the main package name
is also the name of one of the binaries, so I thought that would lead to less
confusion. This means that everything except mpsolve-libs (and mpsolve-doc)
has to depend on mpsolve-libs, rather than on mpsolve, the main package. Look
for "Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"; you'll find it in
the main package, and the devel xmpsolve, python3-mpsolve, and octave-mpsolve
subpackages. The mpsolve-doc package doesn't need any dependencies at all,
because it is just documentation.
If you are going to sign on as the official reviewer here, then up top where it
says "Assignee", click on the "take" button. Go to the right of that where it
says "Flags", and click on "set flags", then change the fedora-review flag to
"?" to mark the review as in progress. You will change that to "+" when you
think the package should be approved. At the bottom, find "Status" and change
it from "NEW" to "ASSIGNED". If you already knew all this, pardon me for
mansplaining.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914
Erich Eickmeyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||er...@ericheickmeyer.com
--- Comment #1 from Erich Eickmeyer ---
I have found the following (possible) issues:
- mpsolve-libs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc
/usr/lib64/libmps-fortran.so.0.0.1
* I'm not 100% sure if this is a false-positive, but it was found by RPM
lint.
- mpsolve.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 141: Possible unexpanded macro
in: Requires: octave(api) = %{octave_api}
* Again, not 100% positive on this one here.
- Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mpsolve-
libs , mpsolve-devel , xmpsolve , python3-mpsolve , octave-mpsolve
* This is a spot where I'm not 100% confident in what's going on here.
From what I can see, there are spots where this is happening?
Other than that, if these aren't actual issues, LGTM.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[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", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat
License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
GNU General Public License (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention)", "Mozilla Public License 1.1", "*No copyright* GNU General
Public License (v3)". 527 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/erich/Dev/~Reviewdir/mpsolve/1840914-mpsolve/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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
names).
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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
