Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/psblas/psblas3.git/tree/psblas3.spec?id=12956b23eb7842db59aa73cb5c78f293d96ce9a9 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00654863-psblas3/psblas3-3.5.0-3.fc28.src.rpm Description: The PSBLAS library, developed with the aim to facilitate the parallelization of computationally intensive scientific applications, is designed to address parallel implementation of iterative solvers for sparse linear systems through the distributed memory paradigm. It includes routines for multiplying sparse matrices by dense matrices, solving block diagonal systems with triangular diagonal entries, preprocessing sparse matrices, and contains additional routines for dense matrix operations. The current implementation of PSBLAS addresses a distributed memory execution model operating with message passing. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter This package is for Fedora and EPEL7.
Plain version of SPEC: Spec URL: http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/psblas/psblas3.git/plain/psblas3.spec?id=12956b23eb7842db59aa73cb5c78f293d96ce9a9 SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00654863-psblas3/psblas3-3.5.0-3.fc28.src.rpm
Created attachment 1344334 [details] licensecheck.txt Hello Antonio, Here follows the review template interspersed with my notes/comments: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2222080 bytes in 316 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Why name it psblas3-common and not psblas3-doc? ===== 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: "BSD (unspecified)", "NTP", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 1413 files have unknown license. Makefiles are GPL-licensed, while install-sh scripts are NTP. I have attached licensecheck.txt, though I'm not sure there's anything you could do here - perhaps add the other licenses in the License tag? [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/include/mpich-x86_64, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/mpich, /usr/include/openmpi- x86_64, /usr/lib64/mpich/lib, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/mpich, /usr/lib64/openmpi, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/openmpi Is there a virtual filesystem package that could provide these paths? I couldn't find any. [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]: 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 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]: 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: [x]: 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 psblas3-serial , psblas3-serial-devel , psblas3-common , psblas3-openmpi , psblas3-openmpi-devel , psblas3-mpich , psblas3 -mpich-devel , psblas3-debuginfo Is this because the dependencies have e.g. "serial" between %{name} and %{?_isa} ? [ ]: Package functions as described. Our department's computational rig is offline for maintenance, so I couldn't test, sorry. [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. You could add a comment for the sake of new packagers trying to understand how to write their own spec files. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. They seem OK, save for the ldconfig issue noted below. [-]: 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. Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22728673 [-]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: psblas3-serial-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-serial-devel-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-common-3.5.0-3.fc26.noarch.rpm psblas3-openmpi-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-openmpi-devel-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-mpich-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-mpich-devel-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-debuginfo-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm psblas3-3.5.0-3.fc26.src.rpm psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C psblas3 serial mode psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-serial-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-serial-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-common.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/psblas3-common/html/img141.png psblas3-common.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/psblas3-common/html/img143.png These two images are indeed zero-length and not referenced anywhere in the html or css files. You could ask upstream to remove them if they are there by accident. psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 I see in your changelog that you dealt with ldconfig, should fedora-review not complain? psblas3-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3.src:82: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 17, tab: line 82) 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 19 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: psblas3-debuginfo-3.5.0-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C psblas3 serial mode psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-serial.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmpi.so.12 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmpi.so.12 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmpi.so.12 Can "--as-needed" be used here? psblas3-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-serial-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-serial-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-serial-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib psblas3-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelization -> palatalization, rationalization, pluralization psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, teleprocessing psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.20 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.20 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmpi.so.20 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0 psblas3-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-common.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://people.uniroma2.it/salvatore.filippone/psblas <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> psblas3-common.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/psblas3-common/html/img141.png psblas3-common.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/psblas3-common/html/img143.png 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 30 warnings.
Another thing I forgot to mention, I noticed these messages in the build logs: dwz: ./usr/lib64/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_prec.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_krylov.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/libpsb_base.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: ./usr/lib64/libpsb_util.so.3.5.0.debug: Unknown DWARF DW_OP_253 dwz: Too few files for multifile optimization but I can't find any info on the particular code (DW_OP_253), do you know why it is complaining?
gcc/include/dwarf2.def /* The GNU variable value extension. See http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=161109.2 . */ DW_OP (DW_OP_GNU_variable_value, 0xfd) dwz utility will just not optimize size of *-debuginfo.rpm, it is a problem unrelated to this package.
> Why name it psblas3-common and not psblas3-doc? It's a package that provides documentation, license and readme files, useful for all libraries packages. Serial and MPI packages can be separately installed keeping same documentation directory. > Makefiles are GPL-licensed, while install-sh scripts are NTP. License tag refers to the final library files, not to the scripts used for compiling. > Is there a virtual filesystem package that could provide these paths? I > couldn't find any. $ repoquery -f /usr/lib64/gfortran /usr/include/mpich-x86_64 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules /usr/lib64/mpich /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/mpich Mainly openmpi-devel, mpich-devel and gcc-gfortran. > Is this because the dependencies have e.g. "serial" between %{name} and > %{?_isa} ? Yes, probably. > You could add a comment for the sake of new packagers trying to understand how > to write their own spec files. Done. > I see in your changelog that you dealt with ldconfig, should fedora-review not > complain? Just psblas3-serial needs ldconfig scriptlets since install files in public lib directory. All library-without-ldconfig-* errors are false positive for the MPI libs. > unused-direct-shlib-dependency Unused dependencies fixed. SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655217-psblas3/psblas3.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/psblas/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655217-psblas3/psblas3-3.5.0-4.fc28.src.rpm
(In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #4) > gcc/include/dwarf2.def > /* The GNU variable value extension. > See http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=161109.2 . */ > DW_OP (DW_OP_GNU_variable_value, 0xfd) > > dwz utility will just not optimize size of *-debuginfo.rpm, it is a problem > unrelated to this package. Thank you Jan.
Errata corrige. > I see in your changelog that you dealt with ldconfig, should fedora-review not > complain? Just 'psblas3-serial' needs ldconfig scriptlets since it installs files in the public lib directory. All library-without-ldconfig-* errors are false positive for the MPI libs.
Oops, I forgot to set the review flag. (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > Just 'psblas3-serial' needs ldconfig scriptlets since it installs files in > the public lib directory. > All library-without-ldconfig-* errors are false positive for the MPI libs. OK, got it. With regard to the ownership issue, I suppose if anyone wants to use pblas3, they will also need the other packages that own those directories, so adding these particular dependencies would be moot. As a user, I might start to worry about filesystem corruption if I found zero-length images in one of my folders, but I guess as far as that and the remaining rpmlint warnings go, they're not really an issue. Package is APPROVED.
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #8) > Oops, I forgot to set the review flag. > > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7) > > Just 'psblas3-serial' needs ldconfig scriptlets since it installs files in > > the public lib directory. > > All library-without-ldconfig-* errors are false positive for the MPI libs. > > OK, got it. > > > With regard to the ownership issue, I suppose if anyone wants to use pblas3, > they will also need the other packages that own those directories, so adding > these particular dependencies would be moot. Those dependencies are already satisfied. > > > As a user, I might start to worry about filesystem corruption if I found > zero-length images in one of my folders, but I guess as far as that and the > remaining rpmlint warnings go, they're not really an issue. I will erase them. > > > Package is APPROVED. Thank you.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/psblas3
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4605e211ee
psblas3-3.5.0-9.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-f57eacdeb5
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3b9640f9eb
psblas3-3.5.0-9.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-f57eacdeb5
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4605e211ee
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3b9640f9eb
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
psblas3-3.5.0-9.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
psblas3-3.5.0-15.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-478c329655
psblas3-3.5.0-15.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-478c329655
psblas3-3.5.0-15.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.