Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/viennacl.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/viennacl-1.7.1-14.fc38.src.rpm FAS: trix Description: ViennaCL provides high level C++ interfaces for linear algebra routines on CPUs and GPUs using CUDA, OpenCL, and OpenMP. The focus is on generic implementations of iterative solvers often used for large linear systems and simple integration into existing projects. Description of problem: viennacl is an orphaned package that I want to adopt. The PR of the changes are https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/viennacl/pull-request/1 scratch build is https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94895527 Tested on real hw Number of platforms 1 Platform Name NVIDIA CUDA Platform Vendor NVIDIA Corporation Platform Version OpenCL 3.0 CUDA 11.7.102 And fake hw Number of platforms 1 Platform Name Portable Computing Language Platform Vendor The pocl project Platform Version OpenCL 2.0 pocl 1.8 Linux, RelWithDebInfo, RELOC, LLVM 13.0.1, SLEEF,IG
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/viennacl See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Khronos License", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License". 4245 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/2150621-viennacl/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/cmake(glm-devel, cmake-filesystem, kim-api-devel, python3-uranium, libmodman-devel, bash-completion, websocketpp-devel, libwbxml-devel), /usr/share/cmake/Modules(cmake-filesystem, libsolv-devel, python3-uranium, libmodman-devel, libwbxml-devel) [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. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 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 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: viennacl-devel-1.7.1-14.fc38.noarch.rpm viennacl-1.7.1-14.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_ewkd5nh')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 18.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.4 s Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/viennacl/files/1.7.x/ViennaCL-1.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a596b77972ad3d2bab9d4e63200b171cd0e709fb3f0ceabcaf3668c87d3a238b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a596b77972ad3d2bab9d4e63200b171cd0e709fb3f0ceabcaf3668c87d3a238b Requires -------- viennacl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem Provides -------- viennacl-devel: cmake(ViennaCL) cmake(viennacl) viennacl-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2150621 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH $ rpmlint viennacl-1.7.1-14.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 30.1 s $ rpmlint viennacl-devel-1.7.1-14.fc38.noarch.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 12.8 s Comments: a) Assume documentation is not packaged due to Javascript or fonts or size? b) Why restrict builds to x86_64 ? It does not build on aarch64, but have not checked S390. c) Should tests be enabled by default? d) Previous version https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/viennacl/blob/f33/f/viennacl.spec included POCL only when testing, why change this? e) Previous version removed CL directory which is under Khronos license, may be good to do the same so it is not accidentally installed and might cause a conflict. f) The library seems to be header only with components in .hpp files. Should it be treated as static? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries g) In the spec file document that ISC License ----------- ViennaCL-1.7.1/viennacl/tools/sha1.hpp All other files seem to be under MIT license
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.