Bug 2510919
| Summary: | Review Request: elpa - Eigenvalue solvers for petaflop applications | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | UW_Linux <uwsy1059> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Cristian Le <fedora> |
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dominik, fedora, uwsy1059 |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://elpa.mpcdf.mpg.de/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | Unretirement | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2026-08-18 04:06:47 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Attachments: | |||
|
Description
UW_Linux
2026-08-04 09:43:03 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10810637 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10810637-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. Created attachment 2153573 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10810637 to 10810984
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10810984 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10810984-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. Next time please indicate that this is an unretirement in the description (although if we are lucky we will have a whole new process for the next time :) ).
I like the
> Provides: %{name}-mpi-devel = %{version}-%{release}
idea, but we might want to do something different with the mpi-5 ABI idea that is floating around. We can work on a change proposal together for that if you feel up for it? For now, let's just keep it the same like the other mpi packages.
Please do the `%conf` split here. It is especially useful for mpi packages
The prep steps look super sus. You should be able to do the `%configure` and `%make_build` in specific subdirectories similar to the cmake ones.
Can you check if using `autoreconf` is possible for this package?
Will need to do another license check, I really doubt that license tag is complete.
This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. Created attachment 2153896 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10810984 to 10835222
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10835222 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10835222-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. Created attachment 2154796 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10835222 to 10871764
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10871764 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10871764-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. - If you use autoreconf, might as well point the source to the git repo so that it is easier to navigate - There are few bundled codes to check - fdep (MIT), used only to create autotools, can skip from final license - ftimings (LGPL-3.0-or-later), missing `bundled` provides - src/shipped_srcs/* (MIT), no idea if it's used or not, but would need `bundled` - src/shipped_srcs/OPENCCL_TESTS has unknown providence, please ask about it - Are there discussions about upstreaming the patches? - `autoreconf` should be in %conf section - The flags overload is iffy, at least make a comment on why those choices - The x86_64 flags make this compatible only with x86_64-v3 [1]. This is a good case for looking on how can we distribute arch optimized libraries with `glibc-hwcaps`, and I even got recommended to talk with Florian about this. For now can we skip those, and investigate that together? - Are there scenarios where you want non-openmp version? Ideally both the openmp and mpi parallelization are configurable by the consumer or even the user. Can you check if at least the openmp one is/can be configurable? - Could you raise an issue with upstream about making the tests be runnable against a pre-installed elpa? Not a blocker here, but upstream should know that this would help us a lot with the build time and test navigability etc. - %ldconfig_scriplets are no-op (not actual no-op, but without RPATHs, it does nothing), please remove - Is there confirmation that the project is meant to be licensed under LGPL-3.0-only? BTW, years ago when I was in contact with them, they were open to migrate the build system to CMake. Would definitely help with a lot of complications that I can see from a mile away, but the m4 macros are daunting. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required. Spec URL: https://growl.fedorapeople.org/reviews/elpa/elpa.spec SRPM URL: https://growl.fedorapeople.org/reviews/elpa/elpa-2026.02.002-8.fc46.src.rpm - Add "bundled(ftimings)", Drop x86_64-v3 specific flags, comment the flags overload, remove %ldconfig_scriplets, and move `autoreconf` steps to %conf Created attachment 2155562 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10871764 to 10900313
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10900313 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10900313-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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. I believe you have seen https://github.com/marekandreas/elpa/issues/78, yet I want to mention some more things related to above comment here in case I forgot them: - `src/shipped_srcs/OPENCCL_TESTS`: I didn't find it but `src/shipped_srcs/ONECCL_TESTS` in the git repo, which was excluded in the release artifact in https://elpa.mpcdf.mpg.de/. This makes me hesitant about pointing the source to the git repo, as it most likely makes things complicated (about 7-8 MiB size vs. 2-3 MiB of release tarball, so maybe there would be not only oneccl_tests we have to concern). - Other files under `src/shipped_srcs`: Only `NVIDIA_A100_kernel/hh_test` in the release artifact, but it seems unlikely that they are compiled and included the CPU build. Unfortunately, the `LICENSE` file under that subfolder also doesn't explicitly said what general license they're following. - Regarding OpenMP, consumers can choose what they want: `elpa` for non-OpenMP building, and `elpa_openmp` for OpenMP building. - From https://elpa.mpcdf.mpg.de/LICENSING.html and copyright banner in the source files they only mentioned "LGPLv3"/"... the version 3 of the license of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation", so I think ELPA itself is under LGPL-3-only [iiuc LGPL-3-or-later programs should write things like "version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" in their banners]. |