Bug 1753084 - Review Request: libdivide - Optimized integer division
Summary: Review Request: libdivide - Optimized integer division
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ben Rosser
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1753837
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-09-18 03:57 UTC by Jerry James
Modified: 2019-10-02 00:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-10-02 00:47:18 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
rosser.bjr: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jerry James 2019-09-18 03:57:33 UTC
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libdivide/libdivide.spec
SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libdivide/libdivide-2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package contains a header-only C/C++ library for optimizing integer division.  Integer division is one of the slowest instructions on most CPUs, e.g. on current x64 CPUs a 64-bit integer division has a latency of up to 90 clock cycles whereas a multiplication has a latency of only 3 clock cycles.  libdivide allows you to replace expensive integer division instructions by a sequence of shift, add and multiply instructions that will calculate the integer division much faster.

On current CPUs you can get a speedup of up to 10x for 64-bit integer division and a speedup of up to to 5x for 32-bit integer division when using libdivide.  libdivide also supports SSE2, AVX2 and AVX512 vector division which provides an even larger speedup.

Comment 1 Ben Rosser 2019-09-23 19:35:23 UTC
Hey, sorry for the delay. Everything looks good here, the package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Header 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: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng license Boost Software
     License (v1.0) Boost Software License 1.0". 11 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1753084-libdivide/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libdivide-devel-2.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          libdivide-2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
        LANGUAGE = (unset),
        LC_ALL = (unset),
        LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
        LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
        LANGUAGE = (unset),
        LC_ALL = (unset),
        LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
        LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
libdivide-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://libdivide.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ridiculousfish/libdivide/archive/v2.0/libdivide-2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 70d8792d459e5e021ce13344e506b940c751702959a5fb72848db2dfaa2f196f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70d8792d459e5e021ce13344e506b940c751702959a5fb72848db2dfaa2f196f


Requires
--------
libdivide-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libdivide-devel:
    libdivide-devel



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1753084 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Haskell, Python, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, R, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2019-09-23 21:16:57 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdivide

Comment 3 Jerry James 2019-09-23 21:33:10 UTC
Thank you, Ben!  Much appreciated.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2019-09-23 21:49:05 UTC
FEDORA-2019-92a36829c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-92a36829c9

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2019-09-24 01:24:30 UTC
libdivide-2.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-92a36829c9

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2019-10-02 00:47:18 UTC
libdivide-2.0-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.