Bug 676159
| Summary: | Review Request: crlibm - Correctly Rounded mathematical library | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tim Niemueller <tim> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryzhev> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kryzhev, lemenkov, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kryzhev:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-03-29 19:50:46 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 678774 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 674008 | ||
|
Description
Tim Niemueller
2011-02-08 23:23:27 UTC
-- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Pavel, it's ok to add a tracker bug, but why remove the existing dependency!? Re-adding. Looking at cvs, last modified 10 month ago. Is it still alive? The API is stable, and or a math lib once you have finished the functions, and proven them right (yes, they have mathematical proofs!) what would you do? Besides that it is a requirement for OpenRAVE, another package I have proposed (bug #674008) and which includes this library. For the no-system-libs policy crlibm was split off and is hereby proposed separately. Ok, will take this. 1. Liscence is LGPLv2+, but not LGPLv2. 2. scs_lib bundled in crlibm. As from http://lipforge.ens-lyon.fr/www/crlibm/, "This library is independent from CRlibm." You need neither to get permision to bundle this lib with crlibm nor create seperate review for scslib package and use system one. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries, section Exceptions. License updated. Added patch to build against new system-wide libscs, please see review bug #678774 and consider taking this as well. Thanks! Spec changed in place, new SRPM is at http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/misc/crlibm-1.0-0.2.beta4.fc14.src.rpm. Another update, delete scs_lib in prep stage, modify patch to make sure system header files are used. Adapt for the unavailability of the scs_private.h header file. Spec changed in place, new SRPM is at http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/misc/crlibm-1.0-0.3.beta4.fc14.src.rpm. Hm. Looks like crlibm use scslib not fully correctly with private header. Ok. 1) Makefile.am contain string "SUBDIRS = $(MAYBE_SCS) . tests" which broke building (tried to add scs subdir). Changing it to "SUBDIRS = . tests". But: 2) Tests are compiled, but not used both during prepearation and in final rpm. Removal their compilation leads to at least removal tbx_timing.h header from patch. What is good. (In reply to comment #9) > Hm. Looks like crlibm use scslib not fully correctly with private header. Ok. Yeah, one author, similar macros, included lib, that's simply a consequence. > 1) Makefile.am contain string "SUBDIRS = $(MAYBE_SCS) . tests" which broke > building (tried to add scs subdir). Changing it to "SUBDIRS = . tests". But: Looks as if you built without the libscs-devel installed. Did you use the latest one posted, this contains the BR. If libscs-devel is installed MAYBE_SCS is empty. I have added this do have a chance to get this included uptsream, i.e. you can build with and without system-wide syslib. But the non-sys-wide is not fully working yet, but this is irrelevant for the package, where we only need the case w/sys-wide. > 2) Tests are compiled, but not used both during prepearation and in final rpm. > Removal their compilation leads to at least removal tbx_timing.h header from > patch. What is good. Good point, eliminating tests altogether would be a good thing. I would like to make that a configure flag later on, again, to get this included upstream. But for now the current state should be fine once we find what your compilation error in 1) was. This shouldn't be a blocker on the review. (In reply to comment #10) > Looks as if you built without the libscs-devel installed. Did you use the > latest one posted, this contains the BR. I built with system libscs. And on the next try it works. Think, I done something wrong previuos time. Ok now. No blockers any more. ======== Review =========================== + rpmlint was run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. + The package was named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matchs the base package %{name}. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license LGPLv2+. + The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matchs the upstream source. + The package is successfully compiled and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + Binary RPM package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + Packages do not bundle copies of system libraries. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package do not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + Package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. * No localization. * No large documentaion. + Everything included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. * No static libraries. + Library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + Devel package requires the base package in proper way. + Packages do NOT contain any .la libtool archives. * Not a GUI application. + Packages do not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. All good. I think, I could set review to "+" before getting "git done" for libscs. Approved. Thanks for the thorough review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: crlibm Short Description: Correctly Rounded mathematical library Owners: timn Branches: f14 f15 el5 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Ping, Tim. Please build it at least for Rawhide, which allows me to rebuild openrave in Koji. crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc15 crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el5 crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el6 crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 testing repository. crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. crlibm-1.0-0.4.beta4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. |