Bug 2253362

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6729882
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253362-scip/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06729882-scip/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Updated to version 8.1.0.  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/scip/scip.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/scip/scip-8.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6909526
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253362-scip/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06909526-scip/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

In addition to the procedure described above, this package can also be reviewed with this command:

fedora-review --copr-build 6998942 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Hi Jerry, the spec file looks like you already put in a good amount of work bending SCIP into shape.

This is not the full review yet, but I found that there is more bundling happening in SCIP that you need to address:

https://github.com/markusa4/sassy
https://github.com/tinycthread/tinycthread
https://users.aalto.fi/~tjunttil/bliss

None of those are actually bundled, but it isn't easy to figure that out.  I will make this more explicit in the spec file.

The top-level CMakeLists.txt defines a variable named SYM, which defaults to "sbliss".  In scip-unbundle.patch we set its value to "nauty" instead, which means that the nauty-based symmetry computation is used, instead of the bliss, sassy, or none options.

The top-level CMakeLists.txt also defines a variable named TPI, which defaults to "none", but can also be set to "tny" or "omp".  The tinycthreads code is compiled only if its value is "tny".  We leave it set to "none".  (I tried setting it to "omp", but ran into build failures that I haven't gone back to diagnose.)

The spec file now deletes all of bliss, nauty, sassy, and tinycthread in %prep to ensure none of those source files are used in the build.  I don't know if I can kick off a new COPR build while koji is down, but here are the new URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/scip/scip.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/scip/scip-8.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7047516
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253362-scip/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07047516-scip/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Thank you for clarifying. Looks good to me – approved!

Additional notes:

Some of the noise in the spec file could be improved by working with upstream to
change defaults, making the build more generic or adding build options. These
include basically all the changes in %prep and the patches, e.g.:
- Easy build without bundled libraries
- No arbitrary disabling of helpful compiler options
- lib and include locations

Regarding libscip-doc:
- I don’t see anything licensed under GPL-1.0-or-later
- There is a bundled jquery.js that I think should be annotated (or even unbundled?):
  Provides: bundled(jquery) = 3.6.0


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE.html is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


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

C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License",
     "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To
     Public License, Version 2", "Standard ML of New Jersey License",
     "Eclipse Public License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
     or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "BSD 2-Clause
     License". 938 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in ~/review/2253362-scip/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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 567899 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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
     work.
[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
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libscip
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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 =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: scip-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          libscip-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          libscip-devel-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          libscip-doc-8.1.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          scip-debuginfo-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          scip-debugsource-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          scip-8.1.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8y_x8awy')]
checks: 32, packages: 7

scip.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scip
scip.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libscip-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libscip-doc/html/search/functions_17.js /usr/share/doc/libscip-doc/html/search/all_23.js
===================================================================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 47 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 11.9 s =====================================================================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: scip-debuginfo-8.1.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
=========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjdk2hg8t')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

===================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ======================================================================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 6

scip.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scip
scip.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libscip-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libscip-doc/html/search/functions_17.js /usr/share/doc/libscip-doc/html/search/all_23.js
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 43 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 8.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/scipopt/scip/archive/v810/scip-8.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b6daf54c37d02564b12fb32ec3bb7a105710eb0026adeafc602af4435fa94685
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6daf54c37d02564b12fb32ec3bb7a105710eb0026adeafc602af4435fa94685


Requires
--------
scip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libclusol.so.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libipopt.so.3()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmpfr.so.6()(64bit)
    libnauty.so.2()(64bit)
    libnauty.so.2(LIBNAUTY_2.5)(64bit)
    libreadline.so.8()(64bit)
    libscip(x86-64)
    libsoplex.so.6.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtbb.so.12()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libzimpl.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libscip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libclusol.so.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libipopt.so.3()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libmpfr.so.6()(64bit)
    libnauty.so.2()(64bit)
    libnauty.so.2(LIBNAUTY_2.5)(64bit)
    libreadline.so.8()(64bit)
    libsoplex.so.6.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtbb.so.12()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libzimpl.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libscip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libnauty-devel(x86-64)
    libscip(x86-64)
    libscip.so.8.1()(64bit)
    scip(x86-64)
    zlib-devel(x86-64)

libscip-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

scip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

scip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
scip:
    bundled(cppad)
    bundled(mp)
    scip
    scip(x86-64)

libscip:
    libscip
    libscip(x86-64)
    libscip.so.8.1()(64bit)

libscip-devel:
    cmake(scip)
    libscip-devel
    libscip-devel(x86-64)

libscip-doc:
    libscip-doc

scip-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    scip-debuginfo
    scip-debuginfo(x86-64)

scip-debugsource:
    scip-debugsource
    scip-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L local-repo -b 2253362
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Python, R, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Built with local dependencies:
    ~/review/local-repo/libsoplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
    ~/review/local-repo/libsoplex-devel-6.0.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
    ~/review/local-repo/soplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm

(In reply to Kai A. Hiller from comment #8)
> Some of the noise in the spec file could be improved by working with
> upstream to
> change defaults, making the build more generic or adding build options. These
> include basically all the changes in %prep and the patches, e.g.:
> - Easy build without bundled libraries
> - No arbitrary disabling of helpful compiler options
> - lib and include locations

Absolutely.  I will work with upstream on these items.

> Regarding libscip-doc:
> - I don’t see anything licensed under GPL-1.0-or-later

Doxygen adds some of the files, and doxygen is licensed GPL-1.0-or-later.  I made a web page to help me keep track of such things: https://jamezone.org/pleasure/software/Fedora/license/

> - There is a bundled jquery.js that I think should be annotated (or even
> unbundled?):
>   Provides: bundled(jquery) = 3.6.0

Good catch.  I have updated the spec file with the Provides.

Thank you for the review!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scip

FEDORA-2024-a03add8825 (asl-20240106-1.20240201git2f5d9de.fc41, bliss-0.77-8.fc41, and 35 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a03add8825

FEDORA-2024-a03add8825 (asl-20240106-1.20240201git2f5d9de.fc41, bliss-0.77-8.fc41, and 35 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.