Bug 433292
Summary: | Review Request: lpsolve - OpenOffice.org 3.0 dependency Linear Programming (MILP) solver | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Caolan McNamara <caolanm> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-02-20 20:34:39 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: |
Description
Caolan McNamara
2008-02-18 14:01:21 UTC
This builds cleanly and elicits only this from rpmlint: lpsolve-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is OK. Did you find somewhere any information on which versions of the LGPL are permitted? I couldn't find anything besides LGPL (and the standard GPL notice in the bison output, which doesn't matter). I believe that LGPLv2+ is acceptable in this situation, but it would be good to clarify this with the upstream developers if possible. The compiler is called with just "-O3" when it should be called with the full set of %{optflags}. This has the result of the debuginfo package being broken. It looks like the ccc script will need to be patched to set "opts" to something other than "-O3". Actually the whole build thing is a bit weird. Does the Makefile that's there not work? (It looks like it would still need patching anyway.) * source files match upstream: 842d6c0fb72c8912c8747f096d07c01c1ecab137b8e5b90e41f94ddf2e5cd543 lp_solve_5.5.0.11_source.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. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are not the required set. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is not complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: lpsolve-5.5.0.11-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm liblpsolve55.so()(64bit) lpsolve = 5.5.0.11-1.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig lpsolve-devel-5.5.0.11-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm lpsolve-devel = 5.5.0.11-1.fc9 = lpsolve = 5.5.0.11-1.fc9 * a shared library is installed; ldconfig is called properly. There are no versioned .so files, so the unversioned one is properly in the main package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * 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. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. The updates at: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/lpsolve/lpsolve.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/lpsolve/lpsolve-5.5.0.11-2.fc9.src.rpm honour the optimization flags and I get debuginfo packages Looks good to me; the properl compiler flags are used and the debuginfo . I've no clue how to test this, but I can run the included binary and get help output so it at least does something. One thing I noticed while looking closer at the source tree: There are some files in bfp/bfl_LUSOL/LUSOL which look to be documentation, and one license statement which I guess should be packaged. It looks like a separate project has been inforporated. Judging from the documentation there, it seems that it is intended for it to have a separate release at some point but I couldn't find one. There are also some txt files there which mean nothing to me, and two which have the same content for some reason. So LUSOL_LGPL.txt needs to be packaged, and LUSOL-overview.txt and LUSOL_README.txt should probably be packaged as well. Just let me know if you agree and I'll approve this; there's no need for you to post a new package. That's fine by me. I'll freely admit I'm vague on what the damn thing even does :-) but I'd rather have it in place so than when OOo 3.0 arrives for F10 we don't have a internally bundled copy of it. Great; APPROVED. Just package up that license file and whichever of the other docs you think are useful. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lpsolve Short Description: Linear Programming (MILP) solver Owners: caolanm@ Branches: devel Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. |