Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun.spec SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun-0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Currently provides AMOS and Faddeeva. AMOS (from Netlib) is a portable package for Bessel Functions of a Complex Argument and Nonnegative Order; it contains subroutines for computing Bessel functions and Airy functions. Faddeeva allows computing the various error functions of arbitrary complex arguments (Faddeeva function, error function, complementary error function, scaled complementary error function, imaginary error function, and Dawson function); given these, one can also easily compute Voigt functions, Fresnel integrals, and similar related functions as well. Fedora Account System Username: nalimilan I'd like to include this package because it is a dependency of the Julia language that I am currently packaging. The Koji build is: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6506303 rpmlint prints no errors, except an incorrect warning about spelling, and about the fact that subpackages are not documented: rpmlint SPECS/openspecfun.spec RPMS/x86_64/openspecfun-* openspecfun.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Faddeeva -> McFadden openspecfun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openspecfun-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. For now openspecfun is built using system libm, but I'll change this once openlibm is ready to be packaged.
- To me, you should remove the line Requires: %{name}-devel%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} and provide own license file for -static sub-packege. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 - Please, fix the warning unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopenspecfun.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libquadmath.so.0 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1062901-openspecfun/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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 10240 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]: 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: openspecfun-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openspecfun-static [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: openspecfun-0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openspecfun-devel-0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openspecfun-static-0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openspecfun-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm openspecfun.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Faddeeva -> McFadden openspecfun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openspecfun-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation openspecfun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Faddeeva -> McFadden 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint openspecfun openspecfun-devel openspecfun-static openspecfun.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Faddeeva -> McFadden openspecfun.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopenspecfun.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libquadmath.so.0 openspecfun-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openspecfun-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- openspecfun (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) openspecfun-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libopenspecfun.so.0.1.0()(64bit) openspecfun(x86-64) openspecfun-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openspecfun-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- openspecfun: libopenspecfun.so.0.1.0()(64bit) openspecfun openspecfun(x86-64) openspecfun-devel: openspecfun-devel openspecfun-devel(x86-64) openspecfun-static: openspecfun-static openspecfun-static(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/JuliaLang/openspecfun/archive/v0.2.tar.gz#/openspecfun-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3fee4f25e0ea5b3c82bdb7bd30a447dabdcd4fb71b53e63470fd1d8b176d4614 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fee4f25e0ea5b3c82bdb7bd30a447dabdcd4fb71b53e63470fd1d8b176d4614 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1062901 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
- I would suggest not building -static by default (change to %bcond_with). - -static definitely needs to require -devel for header. - You can't fix the libquadmath linkage - gfortran adds it automatically.
Funny, I was precisely asking you what to do with libquadmath as you seem to have dealt with that in the past. I had more or less come to the conclusion that it was unavoidable. Thanks to both of you for the review and help. Indeed I thought I had disabled -static package by default. Here's a new version which should fix this: Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun.spec SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/openspecfun-0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
Thanks to Orion for the clarifications. Package approved.
Thanks! ======================= Package Name: openspecfun Short Description: Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions New Branches: f20 f19 Owners: nalimilan InitialCC:
No SCM request found.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: openspecfun Short Description: Library providing a collection of special mathematical functions New Branches: f20 f19 Owners: nalimilan InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Milan - any reason not to just build this as is without openlibm?
Actually, after fixing openspecfun to build with system openlibm, I realized we can indeed build it without openlibm at all, and only set USE_OPENLIBM=1 when building Julia: since Julia loads openlibm, it's enough to use it even in openspecfun. So I'd say the package is ready, I've uploaded 0.3 to rawhide and I'm going to push the F20 and F19 updates.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: openspecfun New Branches: f19 f20 Owners: nalimilan InitialCC: It seems that the f19 and f20 branches have not been created. From the documentation, I understand I'm not supposed to create them manually from git (I guess they wouldn't be registered correctly then).
openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19
openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20
openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
openspecfun-0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
openspecfun-0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.