Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.8.0b-14.el6.src.rpm Description: Hypre is a set of matrix preconditioning libraries to aid in the solution of large systems of linear equations. Fedora Account System Username: loveshack This is required for future packages, like petsc. Copr builds: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/63979/
URLs broken.
I don't know where they went, but they're back now.
The internal superlu needed disabling. New source https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.8.0b-15.el6.src.rpm and copr http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/65601/
This is un-official review of the package Few suggestions in spec file: * In BuildRequires section, it is preferred to write each build require package in new line unless they are related. For example in your spec file you can write gcc-c++ and gcc-gfortran in same line, libtool and libtool-ltdl-devel in one line. * In %files section, %defattr is not needed unless you are changing default permission Also, its good to give successful scratch build link of package in koji
(In reply to Sinny Kumari from comment #4) > This is un-official review of the package > > Few suggestions in spec file: > * In BuildRequires section, it is preferred to write each build require > package in new line unless they are related. For example in your spec file > you can write gcc-c++ and gcc-gfortran in same line, libtool and > libtool-ltdl-devel in one line. I don't see that in the guidelines and rpmlint doesn't complain. Where is it documented? > * In %files section, %defattr is not needed unless you are changing default > permission That's from the template that the guidelines recommend using. I thought it was required for EPEL5, but apparently not, so that's a bug in rpmdevtools if it's wrong. > Also, its good to give successful scratch build link of package in koji Where's that documented? It seems like a waste of time/resources to duplicate. I've probably missed other things like that.
This is un-official review of the package Hi, Comments mentioned by me were suggestions not a blocker, they are not mandatory to follow. > > * In BuildRequires section, it is preferred to write each build require > > package in new line unless they are related. For example in your spec file > > you can write gcc-c++ and gcc-gfortran in same line, libtool and > > libtool-ltdl-devel in one line. > > I don't see that in the guidelines and rpmlint doesn't complain. Where is it > documented? This is not mentioned on fedora packaging guideline wiki but I got this feedback for my package from package reviewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182261#c1 , so thought of sharing. > > > * In %files section, %defattr is not needed unless you are changing default > > permission > > That's from the template that the guidelines recommend using. I thought it > was required for EPEL5, but apparently not, so that's a bug in > rpmdevtools if it's wrong. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_basics > > Also, its good to give successful scratch build link of package in koji > > Where's that documented? It seems like a waste of time/resources to > duplicate. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request Its last point says "For bonus points, include a link to a successful koji build so that everyone knows you did all of your homework"
> This is not mentioned on fedora packaging guideline wiki but I got > this feedback for my package from package reviewer There is absolutely no technical reason to split BuildRequires into separate lines. Whatever the reviewer has recommended to you is personal preference, a matter of style. It can be problematic to request new contributors to do things like that. > In %files section, %defattr is not needed unless you are changing default permission Explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions > Also, its good to give successful scratch build link of package in koji Running "fedora-review -b 1176595" would be a great idea. It's not a simple package, so there are quite some things to check, such as the dependency filtering. And the base package dependencies of all subpackages: | %package devel | Summary: Development files for %name | Requires: hypre = %{version} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #7) > > In %files section, %defattr is not needed unless you are changing default permission > > Explained here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions Unfortunately I followed the instructions to use the template, and I thought that was required for EPEL5. I'll remove them. > > Also, its good to give successful scratch build link of package in koji Why does it need to be in koji, and not copr? As far as I know, koji doesn't allow you to build a chain of things, which is what I need, and I'm sure I've seen others supplying copr builds. > Running "fedora-review -b 1176595" would be a great idea. Unfortunately it doesn't work on RHEL6. > It's not a simple package, so there are quite some things to check, such as > the dependency filtering. What's wrong with that? I'm mostly interested in domain experts checking it, though I've built other things against it. (I'm not sure I have the energy to pursue getting packages in, but I'd like to find problems and prevent people duplicating the work.) > And the base package dependencies of all subpackages: > > | %package devel > | Summary: Development files for %name > | Requires: hypre = %{version} > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Omitting the release looks like a mistake, thanks. I don't remember the _isa requirement being in the instructions when I originally read them, and it definitely wasn't in spec files I'd looked at/copied. Also the instructions imply in the "Requires" section that it's only relevant for -devel packages if you don't read the rest. Not arguing, of course, just explaining why contributors may be confused. Thanks.
I made some updates, particularly to survive el6 and rawhide scratch builds, not just copr. SRPM: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.8.0b-15.el6.src.rpm Scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9016008 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9015998
Bother. That should have been SRPM: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.8.0b-16.el6.src.rpm
I am interested in reviewing hypre but the srpm is not available. Coud you, please, fix this? :-)
(In reply to José Matos from comment #11) > I am interested in reviewing hypre but the srpm is not available. > > Coud you, please, fix this? :-) Oh dear; I hadn't seen this, sorry. I've missed a number of mail items from bugzilla somehow. I don't know how I deleted the files, but they're back now. See also https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/package/hypre/ Thanks for the interest. However, that's now an old version. I don't think a later one was compatible with petsc at the time, but I think it is now. I have an attempt at 2.10.0b, but it doesn't seem to build everything according to the note from a while ago. I'll get back to it as soon as possible and have another look. Hope you're still interested!
loveshack's scratch build of hypre-2.10.1-1.el6.src.rpm for f23-candidate failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12021656
loveshack's scratch build of hypre-2.10.1-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12029303
This is the current upstream version, which should work with the current petsci (work in progress): Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.10.1-1.el6.src.rpm
Use %autosetup please with so many patches. A single Requires/Provides per line. %doc is used for some license files. .so files would usually be named like libHYPRE.so.2.10.1 not libHYPRE-2.10.1.so. With the current naming, the number is part of the file name. I don't really know what the effect of this is. It will probably break linking against the library... Do you have any programs using the headers and libraries in -devel? It seem that at least it breaks automatic MPI provides/requires generation: $ rpm -qp -R results/hypre-openmpi-2.10.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm openmpi(x86-64) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 as you can see, there are no requirements on libraries.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16) > Use %autosetup please with so many patches. Than I wouldn't be able to use it on the platform I care about (el6). > A single Requires/Provides per line. Where's that documented? > %doc is used for some license files. Thanks. > .so files would usually be named like libHYPRE.so.2.10.1 not > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so. With the current naming, the number is part of the file > name. See the comment in the spec file. That's kept in Debian and, I think, OpenSuSE, and I didn't see anything prohibiting it when I checked. > I don't really know what the effect of this is. It will probably break > linking against the library... Do you have any programs using the headers > and libraries in -devel? Yes. This was done as a dependency of petsc and trilinos. $ rpm -q --requires trilinos-openmpi|grep -i hypre libHYPRE-2.10.1.so()(64bit) I haven't fixed the spec for the latest petsc properly yet, but it builds. > It seem that at least it breaks automatic MPI provides/requires generation: > $ rpm -qp -R results/hypre-openmpi-2.10.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm > openmpi(x86-64) > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 > > as you can see, there are no requirements on libraries. That sounds like a bug in the automatic MPI stuff. An MPI LD_PRELOAD library for profiling or debugging will typically not have a version suffix, for instance, and as far as I can tell, the form that hypre uses is legitimate.
Hi Dave, please update to latest release.
Oops, sorry, I missed your answer, until Antonio added his comment. I'll reply anyway, even though he's taking the review. (In reply to Dave Love from comment #17) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16) > > A single Requires/Provides per line. > > Where's that documented? It's not required, but it's generally considered good practice. It's much more readable and diffs are much easier to read. Also, making things conditional between branches is easier. > > %doc is used for some license files. > > Thanks. > > > .so files would usually be named like libHYPRE.so.2.10.1 not > > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so. With the current naming, the number is part of the file > > name. > > See the comment in the spec file. That's kept in Debian and, I think, > OpenSuSE, and I didn't see anything prohibiting it when I checked. > > > I don't really know what the effect of this is. It will probably break > > linking against the library... Do you have any programs using the headers > > and libraries in -devel? > > Yes. This was done as a dependency of petsc and trilinos. > $ rpm -q --requires trilinos-openmpi|grep -i hypre > libHYPRE-2.10.1.so()(64bit) This means that the dependency is on this specific version of libHYPRE, i.e. exactly version 2.10.1. Normally, you only need a dependency on the first number (major version, 2 in this case), while the middle and final numbers can change [1]. In your case dependent packages will have to be recompiled whenever this version changes. Actually, according to the usual Fedora update rules [2], you wouldn't be allowed to change this number during the lifetime of a Fedora release, because user programs linked to this specific version would break also. [1] http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy All that said, doing this properly might be quite a bit of work, so in this specific case just keeping the broken upstream numbering might be an acceptable policy, if this package will mostly be used for the two dependent packages and you'll be controlling all three.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #18) > Hi Dave, > > please update to latest release. I'll have to check whether it works with the PETSc package, which was the main reason for wanting hypre, but 2.11.1 isn't building. I'll try to sort it out when I have more time.
I now have packaging of the current version buildable x86_64, and against which I can build PETSc. A scratch build on koji has failed on arm, at least, but I can't access the logs either via the web site or the cli to find out what went wrong and try to fix it. (I'll make a koji bug report.) I gave up on the Debian approach of installing the individual built shared libraries; it's fragile and doesn't seem to be what's expected generally by things like PETSc which use hypre. I also changed the soname to be independent of the release version. Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.11.1-1.el6.src.rpm
Shortly after posting that I noticed what the problem probably was (conditionals for openblas) and have tried another build. I'll upload a new version later if that works.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Tests are not performed. - No OpenMPI on s390x architecture ===== 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: "LGPL", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1487 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1176595-hypre/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 122880 bytes in 3 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 %license. [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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hypre- openmpi , hypre-openmpi-devel , hypre-mpich , hypre-mpich-devel , hypre-doc , hypre-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hypre-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-devel-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-openmpi-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-openmpi-devel-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-mpich-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-mpich-devel-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-doc-2.11.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm hypre-debuginfo-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-2.11.1-1.fc25.src.rpm hypre.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-openmpi.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-mpich.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hypre-debuginfo-2.11.1-1.fc25.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hypre.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-openmpi.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-mpich.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- hypre (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) hypre-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hypre-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(openmpi-i386) libmpi_cxx.so.1(openmpi-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 openmpi(x86-32) rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(mpich-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 mpich(x86-32) rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre-mpich(x86-32) mpich-devel(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) openmpi-devel(x86-32) hypre-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hypre: hypre hypre(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-devel: hypre-devel hypre-devel(x86-32) hypre-doc: hypre-doc hypre-openmpi: hypre-openmpi hypre-openmpi(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0(openmpi-i386) hypre-mpich: hypre-mpich hypre-mpich(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0(mpich-i386) hypre-mpich-devel: hypre-mpich-devel hypre-mpich-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi-devel: hypre-openmpi-devel hypre-openmpi-devel(x86-32) hypre-debuginfo: hypre-debuginfo hypre-debuginfo(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/LLNL/hypre/archive/v2.11.1.tar.gz#/hypre-2.11.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6bb2ff565ff694596d0e94d0a75f0c3a2cd6715b8b7652bc71feb8698554db93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6bb2ff565ff694596d0e94d0a75f0c3a2cd6715b8b7652bc71feb8698554db93 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1176595 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
In what circumstances are the tests not performed? I see them run. What's one supposed to do about s390? None of the MPI packages I've seen, nor the MPI packaging guide, mention it, and I don't know of any way to test it. I can't see any evidence of mpich builds either. This version fixes the openblas conditions so it builds on ARM. SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.11.1-2.el6.src.rpm
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #24) > In what circumstances are the tests not performed? I see them run. On fedora rawhide i386: + ./runtest.sh TEST_ij/agg_interp.sh TEST_ij/coarsening.sh TEST_ij/default.sh TEST_ij/elast.sh TEST_ij/interp.sh TEST_ij/lobpcg.sh TEST_ij/matrix.sh TEST_ij/options.sh TEST_ij/smoother.sh TEST_ij/solvers.sh ./runtest.sh: line 12: hostname: command not found > > What's one supposed to do about s390? None of the MPI packages I've seen, > nor the MPI packaging guide, mention it, and I don't know of any way to test > it. I can't see any evidence of mpich builds either. > s390x is not a primary architecture for Fedora, but at least one test can be done. Use 's390-koji' like you do with 'koji'. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #25) > (In reply to Dave Love from comment #24) > > In what circumstances are the tests not performed? I see them run. > > On fedora rawhide i386: > > + ./runtest.sh TEST_ij/agg_interp.sh TEST_ij/coarsening.sh > TEST_ij/default.sh TEST_ij/elast.sh TEST_ij/interp.sh TEST_ij/lobpcg.sh > TEST_ij/matrix.sh TEST_ij/options.sh TEST_ij/smoother.sh TEST_ij/solvers.sh > ./runtest.sh: line 12: hostname: command not found Yes, but it doesn't stop the test being run. I've patched out hostname since it's a pain to require across different releases. > > > > What's one supposed to do about s390? None of the MPI packages I've seen, > > nor the MPI packaging guide, mention it, and I don't know of any way to test > > it. I can't see any evidence of mpich builds either. > > > > s390x is not a primary architecture for Fedora, but at least one test can be > done. Use 's390-koji' like you do with 'koji'. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support I've added an excludearch but I think there are several issues here. It doesn't seem to be documented how to test all architectures, and if that's required, I'd have thought fedpkg should do it. This isn't being picked up generally in reviews. I don't see why openmpi isn't built on s390 anyway -- Debian has it -- but I think the MPI packaging instructions should note architecture dependence. There aren't F-ExcludeArch-s390x bugs to depend on. (I assume orion is listening.) SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/hypre-2.11.1-3.el6.src.rpm
Please, leave a comment about the patches. Package approved. 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: "LGPL", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1487 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1176595-hypre/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 122880 bytes in 3 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 %license. [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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hypre- openmpi , hypre-openmpi-devel , hypre-mpich , hypre-mpich-devel , hypre-doc , hypre-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hypre-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-devel-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-openmpi-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-openmpi-devel-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-mpich-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-mpich-devel-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-doc-2.11.1-3.fc25.noarch.rpm hypre-debuginfo-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm hypre-2.11.1-3.fc25.src.rpm hypre.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-openmpi.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-mpich.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hypre-debuginfo-2.11.1-3.fc25.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hypre.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-openmpi.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-openmpi.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preconditioners -> preconditions, precondition, conditioners hypre-mpich.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 exit hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/mpich/lib/libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-mpich-devel.i686: W: no-documentation hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hypre-openmpi-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- hypre (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) hypre-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hypre-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(openmpi-i386) libmpi_cxx.so.1(openmpi-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 openmpi(x86-32) rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libmpi.so.12(mpich-i386) libopenblas.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libsuperlu.so.5.1 mpich(x86-32) rtld(GNU_HASH) hypre-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre-mpich(x86-32) mpich-devel(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SuperLU-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi(x86-32) openblas-devel(x86-32) openmpi-devel(x86-32) hypre-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hypre: hypre hypre(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0 hypre-devel: hypre-devel hypre-devel(x86-32) hypre-doc: hypre-doc hypre-openmpi: hypre-openmpi hypre-openmpi(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0(openmpi-i386) hypre-mpich: hypre-mpich hypre-mpich(x86-32) libHYPRE.so.0.0(mpich-i386) hypre-mpich-devel: hypre-mpich-devel hypre-mpich-devel(x86-32) hypre-openmpi-devel: hypre-openmpi-devel hypre-openmpi-devel(x86-32) hypre-debuginfo: hypre-debuginfo hypre-debuginfo(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/LLNL/hypre/archive/v2.11.1.tar.gz#/hypre-2.11.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6bb2ff565ff694596d0e94d0a75f0c3a2cd6715b8b7652bc71feb8698554db93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6bb2ff565ff694596d0e94d0a75f0c3a2cd6715b8b7652bc71feb8698554db93 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1176595 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks. Yes, I should have commented on the patches.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/hypre
Seems not to have been linked to the bug in bodhi.