Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xsimd.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xsimd-7.2.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) is a feature of microprocessors that has been available for many years. SIMD instructions perform a single operation on a batch of values at once, and thus provide a way to significantly accelerate code execution. However, these instructions differ between microprocessor vendors and compilers. xsimd provides a unified means for using these features for library authors. Namely, it enables manipulation of batches of numbers with the same arithmetic operators as for single values. It also provides accelerated implementation of common mathematical functions operating on batches. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
I'll review this (working on the review now).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Package is approved, with 2 remarks: 1. Please file a bug against xsimd (*) for the ExcludeArch use and make this block the relevant arch exclude trackerbugs (F-ExcludeArch-ARM, etc). 2. The package does not own %{_libdir}/cmake; nor does it have a "Requires: cmake-filesystem" potentially leaving an empty %{_libdir}/cmake behind after uninstall. cmake-filesystem is a bit of a bug-hammer, so I think it might be best to make the package co-own %{_libdir}/cmake. Or you could even leave this as is, it is not a big problem. *) once it has a bugzilla component ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. See remark above, I believe that the ExcludeArch usage is justified in this case. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. See remark above [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. See remark above [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [-]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [-]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [?]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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 messages: xsimd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) intrinsics -> intrinsic, intrinsic s, extrinsic xsimd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) intrinsics -> intrinsic, intrinsic s, extrinsic xsimd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
> Package is approved Thank you! > 1. Please file a bug against xsimd (*) for the ExcludeArch use and make this > block the relevant arch exclude trackerbugs (F-ExcludeArch-ARM, etc). ack. > 2. The package does not own %{_libdir}/cmake; nor does it have a "Requires: > cmake-filesystem" potentially leaving an empty %{_libdir}/cmake behind after > uninstall. cmake-filesystem is a bit of a bug-hammer, so I think it might be > best to make the package co-own %{_libdir}/cmake. Or you could even leave > this as is, it is not a big problem. Actually, I've made it own %{_libdir}/cmake (to avoid a unnecessary dependency on cmake), but I've realized that the dependency is automatically added by /usr/lib/rpm/cmake.req RPM dependency generator: $ rpm -qp --requires xsimd-devel-7.2.3-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
> I've made it own %{_libdir}/cmake I mean, at first. Current package does not own that dir because of the automatic dependency.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xsimd
(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #2) > 1. Please file a bug against xsimd (*) for the ExcludeArch use and make this > block the relevant arch exclude trackerbugs (F-ExcludeArch-ARM, etc). See bz1726444.
FEDORA-2019-927b707fdb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-927b707fdb
xsimd-7.2.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-927b707fdb
xsimd-7.2.3-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-927b707fdb
xsimd-7.2.3-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-927b707fdb
xsimd-7.2.3-3.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.