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. |