Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs-1.10-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library Fedora Account System Username: smani
Taking this for review.
Should I review this now or should we wait for a couple of more days?
I'd say go for it. Thanks!
There are a few issues to be taken care of here - Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ---> Please use one style consistently. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ----> ?? [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1109491-liblbfgs/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I see -O3 being used .... /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile --tag=CC gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I../include -O3 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -O3 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -c -o lbfgs.lo lbfgs.c mkdir .libs gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I../include -O3 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -O3 -ffast-math -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall -c lbfgs.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/lbfgs.o and others .... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags [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. [?]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: liblbfgs-1.10-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm liblbfgs-devel-1.10-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm liblbfgs-1.10-1.fc21.src.rpm liblbfgs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint liblbfgs-devel liblbfgs liblbfgs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblbfgs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/liblbfgs-1.10.so /lib64/libm.so.6 ---> This needs to be checked. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- liblbfgs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): liblbfgs(x86-64) liblbfgs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- liblbfgs-devel: liblbfgs-devel liblbfgs-devel(x86-64) liblbfgs: liblbfgs liblbfgs(x86-64) liblbfgs-1.10.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- liblbfgs: /usr/lib64/liblbfgs-1.10.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/downloads/chokkan/liblbfgs/liblbfgs-1.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4158ab7402b573e5c69d5f6b03c973047a91e16ca5737d3347e3af9c906868cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4158ab7402b573e5c69d5f6b03c973047a91e16ca5737d3347e3af9c906868cf 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 1109491 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
Mid air collission ....
The -O3 is defined here, as far as I can tell - dnl ------------------------------------------------------------------ dnl Checks for debugging mode dnl ------------------------------------------------------------------ AC_ARG_ENABLE( debug, [AS_HELP_STRING( [--enable-debug], [build for debugging] )], [CFLAGS="-DDEBUG -O -g ${CFLAGS}"], [CFLAGS="-O3 -ffast-math ${CFLAGS}"] )
I'm not sure what the policy regarding the kind of shared library versioning used here is... basically we have %{_libdir}/liblbfgs-1.10.so and %{_libdir}/liblbfgs.so -> %{_libdir}/liblbfgs-1.10.so Guess it would probably best to just use the conventional so versioning.
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #7) > Guess it would probably best to just use the conventional so versioning. That might avoid any confusions I think.
Forgot to add this - Koji build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7060156
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs-1.10-2.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jun 20 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1.10-2 - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -> %%{buildroot} - Add liblbfgs_build.patch
* Patch looks fine and fixes the indicated issues. * Package builds fine - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7060213 ** Only one remaining issue - The rpmlint warning could also be fixed - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc21.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jun 20 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1.10-3 - Add -Wl,--as-needed
Very nice. Package APPROVED. Looks like everything for gmsh is nicely falling into place. :)
Yeah, looks like mmg3d is the last missing piece, and possibly also a reworked freefem++ package might be nice to avoid the bundling issue. Will also look into that ;) Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: liblbfgs Short Description: Limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno library Owners: smani Branches: f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20
liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
liblbfgs-1.10-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
liblbfgs-1.10-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liblbfgs-1.10-3.el6
liblbfgs-1.10-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/liblbfgs-1.10-3.el7
liblbfgs-1.10-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
liblbfgs-1.10-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.