Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/soplex/soplex.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/soplex/soplex-6.0.4-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: SoPlex is an optimization package for solving linear programming problems (LPs) based on an advanced implementation of the primal and dual revised simplex algorithm. It provides special support for the exact solution of LPs with rational input data. It can be used as a standalone solver reading MPS or LP format files via a command line interface as well as embedded into other programs via a C++ class library. The main features of SoPlex are: - presolving, scaling, exploitation of sparsity, hot-starting from any regular basis, - column- and row-oriented form of the simplex algorithm, - an object-oriented software design written in C++, - a compile-time option to use 80bit extended ("quad") precision for numerically difficult LPs, - an LP iterative refinement procedure to compute high-precision solution, and - routines for an exact rational LU factorization and continued fraction approximations in order to compute exact solutions. SoPlex has been used in numerous research and industry projects and is the standard LP solver linked to the mixed-integer nonlinear programming and constraint integer programming solver SCIP. This package is part of an effort to add the SoPlex and SCIP solvers to Fedora. The entire collection of packages is available in a COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/SCIP/. To do a mock build of this package, create ~/.config/mock/fedora-scip-x86_64.cfg with the following contents, then run "mock -r fedora-scip-x86_64" or "fedora-review -m fedora-scip-x86_64". include('/etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg') config_opts['root'] = 'fedora-rawhide-scip' config_opts[f'{config_opts.package_manager}.conf'] += """ [scip] name=Copr repo for SCIP owned by jjames baseurl=https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jjames/SCIP/fedora-rawhide-$basearch/ type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=False gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jjames/SCIP/pubkey.gpg repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1 cost=10 """
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6729881 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253361-soplex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06729881-soplex/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The LICENSE file was not included in the doc subpackage. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/soplex/soplex.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/soplex/soplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.src.rpm
In addition to the procedure described above, this package can also be reviewed with this command: fedora-review --copr-build 7026724 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027759 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253361-soplex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027759-soplex/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7041944 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253361-soplex/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07041944-soplex/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.html is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 291 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2253361-soplex/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake [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. [-]: 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 53787 bytes in 2 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libsoplex [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 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: soplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libsoplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libsoplex-devel-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm libsoplex-doc-6.0.4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm soplex-debuginfo-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm soplex-debugsource-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm soplex-6.0.4-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================== rpmlint session starts ============================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpax6d9k73')] checks: 32, packages: 7 libsoplex.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('presolving', '%description -l en_US presolving -> resolving, p resolving, preserving') soplex.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('presolving', '%description -l en_US presolving -> resolving, p resolving, preserving') soplex.src: E: spelling-error ('presolving', '%description -l en_US presolving -> resolving, p resolving, preserving') soplex.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary soplex soplex.aarch64: W: no-documentation libsoplex-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/functions_19.js /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/all_1a.js libsoplex-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/functions_a.js /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/all_b.js 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 46 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 2.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: soplex-debuginfo-6.0.4-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm ============================== rpmlint session starts ============================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpyi53jf85')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 6 soplex.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('presolving', '%description -l en_US presolving -> resolving, p resolving, preserving') libsoplex.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('presolving', '%description -l en_US presolving -> resolving, p resolving, preserving') soplex.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary soplex soplex.aarch64: W: no-documentation libsoplex-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/functions_19.js /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/all_1a.js libsoplex-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/functions_a.js /usr/share/doc/libsoplex-doc/html/search/all_b.js 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 42 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/archive/release-604.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 691f5b593cb85c2586522d5de5a5a7692958d22ff1ddffb4fc395f4696590b6f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 691f5b593cb85c2586522d5de5a5a7692958d22ff1ddffb4fc395f4696590b6f Requires -------- soplex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclusol.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.5.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpfr.so.6()(64bit) libsoplex(aarch-64) libsoplex.so.6.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsoplex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclusol.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.5.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpfr.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsoplex-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel(aarch-64) cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) gmp-devel(aarch-64) libpapilo-devel(aarch-64) libsoplex(aarch-64) libsoplex.so.6.0()(64bit) mpfr-devel(aarch-64) soplex(aarch-64) zlib-devel(aarch-64) libsoplex-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): soplex-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): soplex-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- soplex: soplex soplex(aarch-64) libsoplex: libsoplex libsoplex(aarch-64) libsoplex.so.6.0()(64bit) libsoplex-devel: cmake(soplex) libsoplex-devel libsoplex-devel(aarch-64) libsoplex-doc: libsoplex-doc soplex-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) soplex-debuginfo soplex-debuginfo(aarch-64) soplex-debugsource: soplex-debugsource soplex-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253361 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please update to the latest release 7.0.0 b) License file does not contain full license text https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/blob/master/LICENSE maybe raise an issue upstream? c) In latest release, fmt is bundled and has a different license: https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/tree/master/src/soplex/external/fmt d) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113870402 e) Consider upstreaming python3 patch f) Approved as above issues are not blocking, though still worth addressing.
Benson, thank you so much for the review. (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #7) > Comments: > a) Please update to the latest release 7.0.0 Hmmm, I'm not sure what to do here. There is a release-700 tag on https://github.com/scipopt/soplex, but: - https://soplex.zib.de/index.php#news lists version 6.0.4 as the most recent version - https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/blob/master/CHANGELOG shows 6.0.4 as the most recent version, with other changes under "Next major release". - http://listserv.zib.de/pipermail/soplex/ does not show any announcement of a version 7.0.0 I get the impression that, the git tag notwithstanding, version 7.0.0 hasn't actually been released yet. I would like to stay with version 6.0.4 for now if that does not cause you concern. > b) License file does not contain full license text > https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/blob/master/LICENSE > maybe raise an issue upstream? Done: https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/issues/31 > c) In latest release, fmt is bundled and has a different license: > https://github.com/scipopt/soplex/tree/master/src/soplex/external/fmt Okay, I will deal with that when updating to 7.0.0. It uses fmt version 6.x, like papilo, which is incompatible with the version of fmt in Rawhide. We'll have to allow the bundling, along with adding the appropriate Provides and adding to the License field. > e) Consider upstreaming python3 patch It's kind of ugly. I've been meaning to make it a little prettier and submit it, but obviously haven't gotten around to it. I will schedule that for tomorrow. > f) Approved as above issues are not blocking, though still worth addressing. Thank you! I'll wait to hear your opinion on the 7.0.0 upgrade before importing.
> I'll wait to hear your opinion on the 7.0.0 upgrade before importing. Have not checked if the tag for 7.0.0 is incompatible with the rest of the packages. It seems ok to upgrade later, possibly once SCIP Optimization Suite 8.0.5 is released.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/soplex
FEDORA-2024-a03add8825 (asl-20240106-1.20240201git2f5d9de.fc41, bliss-0.77-8.fc41, and 35 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a03add8825
FEDORA-2024-a03add8825 (asl-20240106-1.20240201git2f5d9de.fc41, bliss-0.77-8.fc41, and 35 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.