Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/openmx.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/openmx-3.7.8-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: OpenMX (Open source package for Material eXplorer) is a software package for nano-scale material simulations based on density functional theories (DFT), norm-conserving pseudopotentials, and pseudo-atomic localized basis functions. Fedora Account System Username: marcindulak
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for epel7 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11739384
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11739394
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for el6-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11739423
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11739405
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for el6-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11739493
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for epel7 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11750243
New version: Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r01/openmx.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r01/openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
can you take tis for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=995438 ?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/gil/1156086-openmx/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/linear/eri_linfsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/log/eri_fsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/log/eri_logfsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/eri_sbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_gtbl_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_interpolate_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_ll_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_sf_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/test/test/test_pp [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: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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 %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1086 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1156086-openmx/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license headers. Please, inform upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Please, inform upstream to add license and copyright notice in source directory structure. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [?]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 openmx- openmpi , openmx-mpich , openmx-data , openmx-common , openmx- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-openmpi-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-mpich-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-data-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-common-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-debuginfo-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-debuginfo-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-openmpi-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-mpich-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-data-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-common-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-debuginfo-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1156086-openmx/results/openmx-debuginfo-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: openmx-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm openmx-openmpi-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm openmx-mpich-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm openmx-data-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm openmx-common-3.7.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm openmx-debuginfo-3.7.10-1.fc24.i686.rpm openmx-3.7.10-1.fc24.src.rpm openmx.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx.i686: E: no-binary openmx.i686: W: no-documentation openmx-openmpi.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C openmx - openmpi version openmx-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx-openmpi.i686: W: no-documentation openmx-mpich.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C openmx - mpich version openmx-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx-mpich.i686: W: no-documentation openmx-data.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C openmx - data files openmx-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx-data.noarch: W: no-documentation openmx-common.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C openmx - common files openmx-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx-common.noarch: W: no-documentation openmx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXplorer -> explorer, explore, explorers openmx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nano -> anon, Kano, Nona openmx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials openmx.src: W: strange-permission solve_evp_real.f90.solve_tridi.patch 600 openmx.src: W: strange-permission solve_evp_complex.f90.solve_tridi.patch 600 openmx.src:128: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 128, tab: line 40) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 32 warnings. Requires -------- openmx-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libelpa.so.3(openmpi-i386) libfftw3.so.3 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1) libgfortran.so.3 libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4) libgomp.so.1 libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_2.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(openmpi-i386) libmpi_mpifh.so.12(openmpi-i386) libmpi_usempif08.so.11(openmpi-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libpthread.so.0 openmx-data rtld(GNU_HASH) openmx-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openmx-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libelpa.so.3(mpich-i386) libfftw3.so.3 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1) libgfortran.so.3 libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4) libgomp.so.1 libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_2.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(mpich-i386) libmpifort.so.12(mpich-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libpthread.so.0 openmx-data rtld(GNU_HASH) openmx-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openmx-common openmx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openmx-data openssh-clients openmx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openmx-openmpi: openmx-openmpi openmx-openmpi(x86-32) openmx-common: openmx-common openmx-mpich: openmx-mpich openmx-mpich(x86-32) openmx-data: openmx-data openmx: openmx openmx(x86-32) openmx-debuginfo: openmx-debuginfo openmx-debuginfo(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.openmx-square.org/openmx3.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24329cd1fbad98d6cb99b04e4d988b0715e2ce3156f79e4855c46f93a0c981f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e3490007e7acbfdd29d32008c8fdec7e678a448cfd74aad13bce2dc5e9fc622 http://www.openmx-square.org/bugfixed/15Feb21/patch3.7.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dce84baeb56f9f0eee036d2d79825bb8ee25a0cf8cfbcf1719ad34630c5a8c12 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dce84baeb56f9f0eee036d2d79825bb8ee25a0cf8cfbcf1719ad34630c5a8c12 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1156086 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Created attachment 1091301 [details] diff.txt
Issues: - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/gil/1156086-openmx/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL [!]: 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 %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1086 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1156086-openmx/licensecheck.txt All source files are without license headers. Please, inform upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s and ask to add license headers in those files where is missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Please, inform upstream to add license and copyright notice in source directory structure. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. . [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openmx- openmpi , openmx-mpich , openmx-data , openmx-common , openmx- debuginfo [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Other issues: [!]: Package contains no static executables. openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/linear/eri_linfsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/log/eri_fsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/log/eri_logfsbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/sbt/eri_sbt_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_gtbl_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_interpolate_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_ll_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/source/eri_sf_ipa6_openmx.oo openmx3.7/source/liberi-091216/test/test/test_pp
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for el6-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11795210
marcindulak's scratch build of openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11795197
can you upload the new spec file and src rpm?
I don't know why some of my scratch builds end up listed here. Those are not the same ones as the next version below: Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/openmx/r02/openmx-3.7.10-1.el7.centos.src.rpm Addressed issues: 1. I believe the problem with diff may be due to fedora-review itself (or something else). Two local fedora-review (fedora-review-0.6.0-2.fc23.noarch) runs reported once Bi10.0.pao and Xe11.0.pao the second time to differ. Both times the problematic file seems to be truncated, and the truncation happens in the upstream-unpacked folder, which should correspond to the extracted tarball. Checking the contents of the source tarball present in the fedora-review's directory shows there is no mismatch: [openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 117784869 Nov 11 08:47 openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz [openmx@localhost ~]$ tar tvf openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz | grep Xe11 -rw-rw-rw- ozaki/ozaki 684404 2013-04-29 03:11 openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao Compare this to fedora-review reported diff:: [openmx@localhost ~]$ ls -al /home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao /home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 684404 Apr 29 2013 /home/openmx/openmx/srpm-unpacked/openmx3.7.tar.gz-extract/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao -rw-r--r--. 1 openmx mock 572416 Nov 11 09:16 /home/openmx/openmx/upstream-unpacked/Source0/openmx3.7/DFT_DATA13/PAO/Xe11.0.pao This is weird, maybe you can figure out more. 2. I believe the licensing of the package is OK, and reported a missing license file to upstream http://www.openmx-square.org/forum/patio.cgi?mode=view&no=1747 3. LICENSE and COPYING files are now installed with every subpackage due to license presence in openmx-common and openmx-data. Other subpackages Require openmx-common. 4. openmx-common and openmx-data are noarch so no %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} is used 6. I have included a link to upstream post that justifies the included patches. 7. liberi-091216/.../*oo and test_pp files removed 8. I believe the package does not install under fedora-review due to to fact it tries to install openmx-debuginfo twice. I don't know why this happens.
Thanks! Now, seem all ok! Approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/openmx
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1e7438f1bc
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-29c6fb01ce
openmx-3.7.10-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9835855cd4
openmx-3.7.10-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-90554f27d9
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update openmx' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1e7438f1bc
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update openmx' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-29c6fb01ce
openmx-3.7.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update openmx' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9835855cd4
openmx-3.7.10-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update openmx' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-90554f27d9
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openmx-3.7.10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openmx-3.7.10-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
openmx-3.7.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Two things were not caught in this review: 1. Bundled library liberi : source/liberi-091216. Original upstream seems to be here: http://cpc.cs.qub.ac.uk/summaries/AEGG_v1_0.html and the license is non-free: http://cpc.cs.qub.ac.uk/licence/licence.html [...] No user or site will re-distribute the source code or executable code to a third party in original or modified form without the written permission of the author. [...] This licence does not permit any commercial (profit-making or proprietary) use or re-licensing or re-distributions. Persons interested in for-profit use should contact the author. 2. The build process is very complicated and I'd argue it doesn't meet the "spec file MUST be legible" standard.