Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/heffte.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/heffte-2.4.1-1.fc42.src.rpm TaskID: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125213104 Description: The Highly Efficient FFT for Exascale (heFFTe) library is being developed as part of the Exascale Computing Project (ECP). HeFFTe delivers algorithms for distributed fast-Fourier transforms in on a heterogeneous systems, targeting the upcoming exascale machines. Fedora Account System Username: junghans
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179393 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321925-heffte/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179393-heffte/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.
I exclude s390x due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322073, also see https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/issues/59
Will see if can pickup MPICH. rocfft is available in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rocfft/rocfft/ Perhaps create a rocfft package as well Magma is also available in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/magma/magma/ so perhaps can be enabled. Subpackages for AVX and AVX512 may also be helpful: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Optimized_Binaries_for_the_AMD64_Architecture
As they are MPI packages, the regular, AVX and AVX512 versions could also be implemented as separate modules.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > Will see if can pickup MPICH. Awesome, let me know when it is fixed! Not sure this review has to wait for that though. > rocfft is available in Fedora: > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/rocfft/rocfft/ > Perhaps create a rocfft package as well I don't know enough about rocm to do this, maybe @trix could help. > Magma is also available in Fedora: > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/magma/magma/ > so perhaps can be enabled. Magma needs a GPU backend, i.e. rocm, so see above. > Subpackages for AVX and AVX512 may also be helpful: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ > Optimized_Binaries_for_the_AMD64_Architecture Sure, do you have an example to work from? The option only inject the right `-m*` flags, there are not separate code paths. But given that fftw (99% of the compute) doesn't have AVX enabled yet, it might not be worth it right now.
@benson_muite I think I would prefer to go ahead without rocm for now.
Ok. Will check in a few days. Seeing if rocfft packages can be built for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328503
If you want, you can add me as at least a contributor to the package and/or poke me or file a bz and assign to me to add the magma and rocfft bits once it lands. I'd like to see both used as widely as possible. Then we can add it to the rocm sig's copr here https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/rocm-packagers-sig/RH/ To make sure it does not break with rocm or magma updates.
(In reply to Tom.Rix from comment #8) > If you want, you can add me as at least a contributor to the package and/or > poke me or file a bz and assign to me to add the magma and rocfft bits once > it lands. > I'd like to see both used as widely as possible. > Then we can add it to the rocm sig's copr here > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/rocm-packagers-sig/RH/ > To make sure it does not break with rocm or magma updates. Sound like a plan, let's get the base non-rocm version in and then we can iterate on the rocm part. lammps and gromacs can use heffte, so that would give us two consumers already.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 128 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/heffte/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/mpich-x86_64/stock_fft, /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64/stock_fft, /usr/share/heffte/testing, /usr/share/heffte [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/heffte, /usr/include/mpich-x86_64/stock_fft, /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64/stock_fft, /usr/share/heffte/testing [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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8042 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 heffte- openmpi , heffte-openmpi-devel , heffte-mpich , heffte-mpich-devel , heffte-examples [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: heffte-openmpi-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-openmpi-devel-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-mpich-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-mpich-devel-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-examples-2.4.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm heffte-debuginfo-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-debugsource-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-2.4.1-1.fc42.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/tmpf83u_rho')] checks: 32, packages: 8 heffte-examples.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized example file for heffte heffte-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized mpich libraries for heffte heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized mpich development headers and libraries for heffte heffte-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized openmpi libraries for heffte heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized openmpi development headers and libraries for heffte heffte.src: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-examples.noarch: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-mpich.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-openmpi.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('exascale', '%description -l en_US exascale -> scale') heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib heffte-mpich.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libheffte.so.2.4.1 heffte-mpich.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libhefftefftwfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-mpich.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libhefftestockfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libheffte.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libhefftefftwfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libhefftestockfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_c.c heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_fftw.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_gpu.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_options.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_r2c.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_r2r.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_sycl.cpp heffte-examples.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/heffte/examples/heffte_example_vectors.cpp heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libheffte.so.2 libheffte.so.2.4.1 heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libhefftefftwfortran.so.2 libhefftefftwfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libhefftestockfortran.so.2 libhefftestockfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libheffte.so.2 libheffte.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libhefftefftwfortran.so.2 libhefftefftwfortran.so.2.4.1 heffte-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libhefftestockfortran.so.2 libhefftestockfortran.so.2.4.1 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 24 warnings, 64 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: heffte-openmpi-debuginfo-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-debuginfo-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm heffte-mpich-debuginfo-2.4.1-1.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpxo94a82d')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-openmpi-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-examples". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-openmpi". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-mpich-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-mpich". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-openmpi-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "heffte-mpich-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 9 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/archive/v2.4.1.tar.gz#/heffte-2.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de2cf26df5d61baac7841525db3f393cb007f79612ac7534fd4757f154ba3e6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de2cf26df5d61baac7841525db3f393cb007f79612ac7534fd4757f154ba3e6c Requires -------- heffte-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libfftw3f.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libheffte.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) heffte-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): heffte-openmpi(x86-64) openmpi-devel heffte-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libfftw3f.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libheffte.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) heffte-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): heffte-mpich(x86-64) mpich-devel heffte-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (heffte-openmpi-devel = 2.4.1 or heffte-mpich-devel = 2.4.1) heffte-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): heffte-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- heffte-openmpi: heffte-openmpi heffte-openmpi(x86-64) libheffte.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libhefftefftwfortran.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libhefftestockfortran.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) heffte-openmpi-devel: heffte-openmpi-devel heffte-openmpi-devel(x86-64) heffte-mpich: heffte-mpich heffte-mpich(x86-64) libheffte.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libhefftefftwfortran.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libhefftestockfortran.so.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) heffte-mpich-devel: heffte-mpich-devel heffte-mpich-devel(x86-64) heffte-examples: heffte-examples heffte-debuginfo: heffte-debuginfo heffte-debuginfo(x86-64) heffte-debugsource: heffte-debugsource heffte-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name heffte --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, R, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Did mock build on a Rocky linux server, so could not run Fedora-review there. b) Consider changing: Source0: https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source: https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz as sources do not need to be numbered and the url follows suggested format in the packaging guidelines: c) Please ensure /usr/include/mpich-x86_64/stock_fft /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64/stock_fft are owned, use %files openmpi %doc README.md %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/openmpi*/lib/lib%{name}*.so.%{version} %files openmpi-devel %{_includedir}/openmpi*/%{name}* %dir %{_includedir}/openmpi*/stock_fft %{_includedir}/openmpi*/stock_fft/*.h %{_libdir}/openmpi*/lib/cmake/Heffte %{_libdir}/openmpi*/lib/lib%{name}*.so %{_libdir}/openmpi*/lib/lib%{name}*.so.%{sover} %files mpich %doc README.md %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/mpich*/lib/lib%{name}*.so.%{version} %files mpich-devel %{_includedir}/mpich*/%{name}* %dir %{_includedir}/mpich*/stock_fft %{_includedir}/mpich*/stock_fft/*.h %{_libdir}/mpich*/lib/cmake/Heffte %{_libdir}/mpich*/lib/lib%{name}*.so %{_libdir}/mpich*/lib/lib%{name}*.so.%{sover} %files examples %{_datadir}/%{name}/examples %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/HeffteMakefile.in %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/testing %{_datadir}/%{name}/testing/CMakeLists.txt d) Is the testing configuration needed? It is installed by: https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L328-L337 The resulting directories /usr/share/heffte/testing /usr/share/heffte are not currently owned. e) Can documentation be built? Current configuration is for HTML documentation: https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/blob/master/doxygen/CMakeLists.txt though Doxygen can generate man pages. f) Please capitalize summaries
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10) > b) Consider changing: > Source0: > https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz > to > Source: > https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}. > tar.gz > as sources do not need to be numbered and the url follows suggested format > in the packaging guidelines: Done > c) Please ensure > /usr/include/mpich-x86_64/stock_fft > /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64/stock_fft > are owned, use Done > d) Is the testing configuration needed? It is installed by: > https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L328-L337 I deleted them > The resulting directories > /usr/share/heffte/testing > /usr/share/heffte > are not currently owned. Done > e) Can documentation be built? Current configuration is for HTML > documentation: > https://github.com/icl-utk-edu/heffte/blob/master/doxygen/CMakeLists.txt > though Doxygen can generate man pages. Added > f) Please capitalize summaries Fixed Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/heffte.spec SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/heffte-2.4.1-2.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2060706 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8179393 to 8332141
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8332141 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321925-heffte/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08332141-heffte/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.
Thanks. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/heffte
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-42a4e251e7
FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7 (gromacs-2024.4-1.fc40 and heffte-2.4.1-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7
FEDORA-2024-31834528f1 (gromacs-2024.4-1.fc41 and heffte-2.4.1-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-31834528f1
FEDORA-2024-31834528f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-31834528f1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-31834528f1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-565a786fc7 (gromacs-2024.4-1.fc40 and heffte-2.4.1-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-31834528f1 (gromacs-2024.4-1.fc41 and heffte-2.4.1-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.