Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: libMBD implements the many-body dispersion (MBD) method in several programming languages and frameworks Serial version. Fedora Account System Username: lecris
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8797727 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353869-libmbd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08797727-libmbd/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 attempted a "fedora-review --name libmbd", but the build.log shows all openmpi tests failed with this error. The build was made against f43 (current rawhide), I can reproduce this in koji https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131110164 ``` ************************************************ Start 42: api/ts_gradients 42/42 Test #42: api/ts_gradients ........................***Failed 0.02 sec ************************************************ We have detected that the runtime version of the PMIx library we were given is binary incompatible with the version we were built against: Runtime: 0x50007 Build: 0x40208 Please update your LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point us to the same PMIx version used to build PRRTE. ************************************************ 0% tests passed, 42 tests failed out of 42 ``` ``` grep -E 'pmix |prrte |openmpi ' review-libmbd/results/root.log DEBUG util.py:461: openmpi x86_64 5.0.6-5.fc43 fedora 7.0 MiB DEBUG util.py:461: pmix x86_64 5.0.7-1.fc43 fedora 2.2 MiB DEBUG util.py:461: prrte x86_64 3.0.6-6.fc43 fedora 158.2 KiB DEBUG util.py:461: scalapack-openmpi x86_64 2.2.2-3.fc43 fedora 5.6 MiB ```
Please add at least first part of sonames to libraries (see the packaging guidelines): %{_libdir}/libmbd.so.* %files openmpi %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.* %files mpich %license LICENSE %{_libdir}/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.*
RE: the test failures, this is related to a missing rebuild after PMIX version bump [1]. Keep an eye out for Koschei failures. > Please add at least first part of sonames to libraries (see the packaging guidelines): Thanks, but can we postpone this for when upstream has decided on the SOVERSION model, since the PR is still in review[2]? Perfectly fine for me to add it if you advise for it. [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openmpi/pull-request/22 [2]: https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/pull/74
Here is the result of "fedora-review --name libmbd", after I filled in the empty "Manual review needed". I have two points: 1) One thing I'm not sure about is whether the srpm should contain the spec file that has expanded parts "Set" or "Generated by rpmautospec", or rather the unexpanded macros. [?]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) 2) Another thing is a dependency on /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1, which is marked as an error: libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 but it appears to be present: ldd review-libmbd/rpms-unpacked/libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm/usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007f1f6d3cb000) libgfortran.so.5 => /lib64/libgfortran.so.5 (0x00007f1f6d000000) libmvec.so.1 => /lib64/libmvec.so.1 (0x00007f1f6cf05000) libflexiblas.so.3 => /lib64/libflexiblas.so.3 (0x00007f1f6ca00000) libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007f1f6ce1f000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f1f6c80d000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f1f6d316000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f1f6d3cd000) libquadmath.so.0 => /lib64/libquadmath.so.0 (0x00007f1f6cdd7000) Here is review.txt. Please use this as an input for the future review. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /vagrant/libmbd/review-libmbd/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/gfortran In the point above and the next point, I believe the dependencies are auto-discovered by rpmbuild, so gfortran, openmpi-devel, etc. don't need to be listed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/openmpi, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/cmake [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It looks to me that cmake uses Fedora's compiler flags (CFLAGS and others). [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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. [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmbd- openmpi , libmbd-mpich , libmbd-openmpi-devel , libmbd-mpich-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: 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: [?]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) I'm not sure whether the srpm should contain the spec file that contains parts "Set" or "Generated by rpmautospec", or rather the unexpanded macros. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfb5smm40')] checks: 32, packages: 7 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 55 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmbd-openmpi-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcnrjesqg')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 72 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 2.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/archive/0.13.0/libmbd-0.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 Requires -------- libmbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi_usempif08.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpifort.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmbd(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) libmbd-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-mpich(x86-64) Provides -------- libmbd: libmbd libmbd(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit) libmbd-openmpi: libmbd-openmpi libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmbd-mpich: libmbd-mpich libmbd-mpich(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmbd-devel: cmake(Mbd) cmake(mbd) libmbd-devel libmbd-devel(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel: libmbd-openmpi-devel libmbd-openmpi-devel(x86-64) libmbd-mpich-devel: libmbd-mpich-devel libmbd-mpich-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /vagrant/libmbd/libmbd.spec 2025-04-04 21:15:51.892006581 +0000 +++ /vagrant/libmbd/review-libmbd/srpm-unpacked/libmbd.spec 2025-03-20 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Mar 20 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.13.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name libmbd Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Python, Java, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Re point 1, yes that is intended. See any production package [1] that uses autospec macros. Re point 2, this is probably an upstream issue, either in libmbd or higher up in gfortran/cmake, etc. I did not investigate how common this issue is, but I see that dependency in other Fortran packages. I would say let's look into this issue more generally, since the only side-effect is that it adds a dependency on `libgcc` and we are not the only ones ``` $ fedrq whatrequires "libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)" | wc -l 5727 ``` (it is also installed by default) The only other thing is adding `BuildRequires: gcc`, which I will add it at the next upload or after packaging. For now though it is indirectly included because of gcc-gfortran dependence: ``` $ fedrq pkgs gcc-gfortran -F requires | grep gcc gcc = 15.0.1-0.14.fc43 ``` [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tonic-types
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm I am still uncertain what we need for this review
Created attachment 2089847 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8797727 to 9041117
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9041117 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353869-libmbd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09041117-libmbd/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.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > Please add at least first part of sonames to libraries (see the packaging > guidelines): > %{_libdir}/libmbd.so.* > > %files openmpi > %license LICENSE > %{_libdir}/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.* > > %files mpich > %license LICENSE > %{_libdir}/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.* I believe this is already addressed. From my perspective the package can be approved, since the spec files uses now the following: %global soversion 0 libmbd.so.%{soversion} libmbd.so.%{soversion}.* However I've not tried to use the resulting RPM for linking, so cannot confirm it works as expected.
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]: 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", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869- libmbd/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/openmpi [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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. [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 libmbd- openmpi , libmbd-mpich , libmbd-openmpi-devel , libmbd-mpich-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp49dxfiyn')] checks: 32, packages: 7 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 53 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmbd-mpich-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp47127_aa')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 70 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/archive/0.13.0/libmbd-0.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 Requires -------- libmbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi_usempif08.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpifort.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libmbd(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) libmbd-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-mpich(x86-64) Provides -------- libmbd: libmbd libmbd(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit) libmbd-openmpi: libmbd-openmpi libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmbd-mpich: libmbd-mpich libmbd-mpich(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmbd-devel: cmake(Mbd) cmake(mbd) libmbd-devel libmbd-devel(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel: libmbd-openmpi-devel libmbd-openmpi-devel(x86-64) libmbd-mpich-devel: libmbd-mpich-devel libmbd-mpich-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869-libmbd/srpm/libmbd.spec 2025-05-17 10:32:24.614646585 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869-libmbd/srpm-unpacked/libmbd.spec 2025-05-14 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Python bindings needs more work %bcond python 0 @@ -235,3 +245,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed May 14 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.13.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353869 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, Python, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132917945 Some tests fail on s390x b) Issues from fedora-review: libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 Not sure why this is. Investigating. libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version Consider just writing Libmd rather than using %name libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These can be ignored c) To check linking, create a copr and build Quantum Expresso or do this in a side-tag. Thanks for unbundling libmbd. I can also check with https://dftbplus.org d) /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/gfortran, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/openmpi Probably want to require gcc-gfortran for libmbd-devel For the openmpi folders, may need to co-own them or require openmpi-devel
> d) /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/cmake ... > Probably want to require gcc-gfortran for libmbd-devel > For the openmpi folders, may need to co-own them or require openmpi-devel This sounds like something that should be patched in the `gfortran`/`openmpi` etc. packages. Something like the .attr [1]. For now though, I think it would make sense to explicitly include them, especially since I have my doubts on how well the cmake/fortran files are designed and if they don't have an implicit dependency on the mpi libraries. Would be nice to untangle them at some point because it technically can work as a C header package > c) To check linking, create a copr and build Quantum Expresso or do this in a side-tag. Thanks for unbundling libmbd. > I can also check with https://dftbplus.org See https://github.com/LecrisUT/FedoraRPM-quantum-espresso. Request me builder access to the linked copr (can find it in the packit builds) and I will add you. > b) Issues from fedora-review: > libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 > libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 > libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 > Not sure why this is. Investigating I did raise it in the devel chat but the source is still unknown. We do have `-Wl,--as-needed` hard-coded so there is nothing that we can do on this end to untangle that issue other than manually patching out, which I want to avoid right now. It may be a Fortran/gfortran weirdness as usual. On the other hand, it is harmless right now. > libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version > libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version > > Consider just writing Libmd rather than using %name Do we have a third option? I wish to still have the exact package reference similar to the `-devel` ones so that it is more directly linked. > a) Koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132917945 > > Some tests fail on s390x Oops thanks for the catch, I have reported it upstream [2], but for now I a excluding the architecture since quantum-espresso is also excluding it. My understanding is that you would need this for dftbplus as well, which is not packaged yet (ping me for review on that one if you need)? We can coordinate later if we want to relax this? [1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cmake/blob/rawhide/f/cmake.attr [2]: https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/issues/76
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm (Related to comment above) Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132959189
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]: 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", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869-libmbd/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. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gfortran [ ]: %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 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 libmbd- openmpi , libmbd-mpich , libmbd-openmpi-devel , libmbd-mpich-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-devel-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphqf2lgb5')] checks: 32, packages: 7 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 53 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmbd-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-mpich-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libmbd-openmpi-debuginfo-0.13.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9vngr050')] checks: 32, packages: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-mpich.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmbd.so.0.13.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 libmbd-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - openmpi version libmbd-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized libmbd - mpich version libmbd-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmbd-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 71 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/archive/0.13.0/libmbd-0.13.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68d73c2cb8d635c2e1bbef6b0c1231dbe5097d57775b98c88fff27c312caff99 Requires -------- libmbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi_usempif08.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_10)(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpifort.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libscalapack.so.2.2()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmbd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) gcc-gfortran libmbd(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) openmpi-devel libmbd-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmbd-mpich(x86-64) mpich-devel Provides -------- libmbd: libmbd libmbd(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit) libmbd-openmpi: libmbd-openmpi libmbd-openmpi(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmbd-mpich: libmbd-mpich libmbd-mpich(x86-64) libmbd.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmbd-devel: cmake(Mbd) cmake(mbd) libmbd-devel libmbd-devel(x86-64) libmbd-openmpi-devel: libmbd-openmpi-devel libmbd-openmpi-devel(x86-64) libmbd-mpich-devel: libmbd-mpich-devel libmbd-mpich-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869-libmbd/srpm/libmbd.spec 2025-06-27 20:18:53.572126830 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/libmd/2353869-libmbd/srpm-unpacked/libmbd.spec 2025-05-19 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Python bindings needs more work %bcond python 0 @@ -242,3 +252,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon May 19 2025 John Doe <packager> - 0.13.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353869 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Perl, Ocaml, R, Haskell, Python, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) What prevents building python versions other than licensing of data file? mpi4py is packaged and has openmpi and mpich versions:" https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/mpi4py/ b) Small typo # Workaround for the gfrotran directory ownership to # Workaround for the gfortran directory ownership
> a) What prevents building python versions other than licensing of data file? Mostly time to work on it and need to have it. They are using their own custom build framework [1] and I want to make sure we are doing it right. I need to discuss with upstream if they would want to use more conventional build backends (biased towards scikit-build-core because it's a CMake project). If you want, I will ping you for a re-review of the python components when I am working on it, but it should look like the current one other than fixing the paths to point to build-time artifacts and fixing the rpaths. If I can convince them to go with scikit-build-core, well, it will look like spglib's approach. > b) Small typo I will fix that on import or the next build, thanks for catching it [1]: https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/blob/master/build.py
It seems like it will build with a bootstrap: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/libmbd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09270357-libmbd/builder-live.log.gz Main problem is that some work is required for numpy>2 compatibility. Additionally, mpi4py in Fedora can come from either python3-mpi4py-openmpi or python3-mpi4py-mpich but neither of these is pulled in automatically. There should be some improvements in being able to use either openmpi or mpich with a standard abi, but this may take a bit of time to appear. Upstream does not seem to be very active in updating the package, pinned Python dependencies are quite old. What is the source of vdw-params.csv ?
> What is the source of vdw-params.csv ? I had comments in the spec file about it, and I opened an upstream issue to get clarification about it. The earliest reference to it is here [1], but also there there is no clear note on where this comes from. > Additionally, mpi4py in Fedora can come from either python3-mpi4py-openmpi or python3-mpi4py-mpich This should not be an issue if the `PYTHONPATH` is adjusted during the module load. I did a quick check and I've found that that is not the case. But this is an issue we should address in the mpi4py package. Do you want to open an issue about it and maybe we can work on that. > Main problem is that some work is required for numpy>2 compatibility. Well, great, that seems like it will be a fun journey. Seems like it will take some time to even get a communication channel with them about these issues. [1]: https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/commit/cfdcb29fe136b3c1e35fbe224224f9713f27f37c
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #17) > > What is the source of vdw-params.csv ? > > I had comments in the spec file about it, and I opened an upstream issue to > get clarification about it. The earliest reference to it is here [1], but > also there there is no clear note on where this comes from. Until this is resolved, remove the file from the sources before creating a source rpm, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code > > > Additionally, mpi4py in Fedora can come from either python3-mpi4py-openmpi or python3-mpi4py-mpich > > This should not be an issue if the `PYTHONPATH` is adjusted during the > module load. I did a quick check and I've found that that is not the case. > But this is an issue we should address in the mpi4py package. Do you want to > open an issue about it and maybe we can work on that. This does not block the current review, will raise issue for mpi4py. > > > Main problem is that some work is required for numpy>2 compatibility. > > Well, great, that seems like it will be a fun journey. Seems like it will > take some time to even get a communication channel with them about these > issues. Does not block the current review, but you may want to note it in the spec file as something blocking inclusion of the Python package in addition to the licensing issue. > > [1]: > https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/commit/ > cfdcb29fe136b3c1e35fbe224224f9713f27f37c
> Until this is resolved, remove the file from the sources before creating a source rpm It is not disallowed though. The original python file is licensed as CC0-1.0 which is allowed for non-code. The issue I've raised is about adding that license header to the file and clarify the origin so we can double-check that the copying was done properly.
To move this review forward, would you consider contacting the author of the vdw-params.csv file by email about the issue https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd/issues/75? git clone https://github.com/libmbd/libmbd cd libmbd git log | grep -i hermann | sort | uniq
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libmbd/libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Legal team noted that the parameters in there are not actually copyrightable, so I've removed the license attribution from there. Thanks Richard. Latest koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135742752
Created attachment 2102771 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9041117 to 9379777
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9379777 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2353869-libmbd/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09379777-libmbd/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.
Approved.
Thank you for the review, Benson
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmbd
FEDORA-2025-b1886e8bd7 (libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b1886e8bd7
FEDORA-2025-b1886e8bd7 (libmbd-0.13.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.