Bug 248363 - Review Request: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
Review Request: mpfr - A C library for multiple-precision floating-point com...
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jochen Schmitt
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
: 248354 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 225809
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-16 09:55 EDT by Ivana Varekova
Modified: 2014-01-06 08:16 EST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-08-06 10:27:37 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
jochen: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
fixed srpm (773.88 KB, application/x-redhat-package-manager)
2007-07-20 03:56 EDT, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details
fixed srpm (again) (782.92 KB, application/x-redhat-package-manager)
2007-07-20 04:53 EDT, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details
proposed version of gmp package (2.42 MB, application/x-rpm)
2007-07-23 08:28 EDT, Ivana Varekova
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Ivana Varekova 2007-07-16 09:55:23 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/mpfr.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/varekova/mpfr-2.2.1-1.src.rpm
Description: 
The MPFR library is a C library for multiple-precision floating-point
computations with "correct rounding". The MPFR is efficient and
also has a well-defined semantics. It copies the good ideas from the
ANSI/IEEE-754 standard for double-precision floating-point arithmetic
(53-bit mantissa). MPFR is based on the GMP multiple-precision library.
Comment 1 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-16 12:19:28 EDT
Good:
+ Package meets naming guildlines.
+ SPEC file name matches with package base name.
+ License tag says GPL
+ Project home page says LGPL as package license
+ Package contains verbatim copy of the license text
+ SPEC is written in English
+ SPEC file is legible
+ Tar ball matches with upstream
  (md5sum: 40bf06f8081461d8db7d6f4ad5b9f6bd)
+ Package has correct build root
+ BuildRequires are not redundant
+ Local build works fine.
+ package has %defattr an proper file permissions
+ %doc section is small
+ %doc section doesn't affect run time
+ Package contains no duplicates in the %file list
+ Changelog entries are ok.
+ Rpmlint is quite on source package.
+ Rpmlint is quite on binary packages
+ Mock build works fine for Devel (x86_64, i386, ppp64, ppc)

Bad:
- Package needs a Conflict tag, because the current gmp package contains the
mpfr package
- Unnecessary condition on deleting build root in %clean section
- Devel package contains static library


Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 03:56:59 EDT
Created attachment 159633 [details]
fixed srpm

Thanks for your review the attached srpm fixes bugs you mentioned.
Comment 3 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 04:05:14 EDT
*** Bug 248354 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Jakub Jelinek 2007-07-20 04:24:28 EDT
The mpfr library is released under LGPL2.1, how can saying it is GPL in the
License tag be a "Good" thing?  Of course you can relicense LGPL2.1 code as GPL,
but why would you do that?  License: LGPL would be much better (unless with the
advent of GPL3, LGPL3, LGPL2.5 we start being more explicit and write
GPL2, GPL2+, GPL3, GPL3+, LGPL2, LGPL2+, LGPL2.1, LGPL2.1+, LGPL2.5, LGPL3,
LGPL3+ etc. in License tags.

Also, upstream mpfr releases stable fixes on top of the last release
as a cummulative patch, see http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/patches
It would be good to apply this in the spec file.
Comment 5 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-20 04:53:41 EDT
Created attachment 159634 [details]
fixed srpm (again)

Thanks Jakub, problems you mention are fixed in this version.
Comment 6 Laurent Rineau 2007-07-21 07:07:10 EDT
As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
#225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).

Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?
Comment 7 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 13:56:40 EDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
> #225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

Yes, you right.

> There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
> is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).
> Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?

We have to poke the gmp maintainer to do the split, because without the split 
we can't release a separate mpfr library.


Comment 8 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 13:57:00 EDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> As far as I understand, that package cannot be push in Fedora, unless bug 
> #225809 is closed, and libmpfr.a (and mpfr headers) removed from gmp-devel.

Yes, you right.

> There is not a log of traffic in bug #225809. I do not even know if somebody 
> is actually maintaining gmp (the version in Fedora is obsolete).
> Ivana, what is your plan? Waiting for GMP maintainers to fix their package?

We have to poke the gmp maintainer to do the split, because without the split 
we can't release a separate mpfr library.


Comment 9 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-22 15:41:10 EDT
I have create a suggestion for the gmp package on gmp-4.2.1.

So I thing, you should add a 'Conflict: gmp < 4.2.1' statement into your package.
Comment 10 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-23 04:37:44 EDT
Hello,
I'm gmp maintainer too so I'd like to update gmp in devel branch too, but I
don't want to remove mpfr files from gmp for long time without existence of the
separate mpfr package. So I plan to do both these changes (update gmp and remove
mpfr files from gmp and add mpfr package) when this review will be approved. 
I will update the conflict flag when I will build the new gmp version. 
Thanks for your comments.
Comment 11 Laurent Rineau 2007-07-23 04:51:44 EDT
Nice to hear that, Ivana. Do you have a gmp package updated, so that we can 
test it with the mpfr RPM of this bug?
Comment 12 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-23 08:28:10 EDT
Created attachment 159779 [details]
proposed version of gmp package

Oops good idea - so this is the proposed version of gmp package.
Comment 13 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 03:52:04 EDT
Is there any other problem? Could somebody approved this package review please?
Thanks.
Comment 14 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-26 09:47:15 EDT
I'm waiting to see a package, where are complaints are fixed.

If I see this package, I will be able to approve your package.
Comment 15 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 10:03:05 EDT
The srpm from comment #5 should have all fixes. Is there any problem with this
package? (perhaps I overlook some comment?)
Comment 16 Jochen Schmitt 2007-07-26 10:39:28 EDT
Soory for my mistake. I have got a look on it and it's looks fine.


*** YOU ARE APPROVED ***
Comment 17 Ivana Varekova 2007-07-26 10:47:00 EDT
Package Name: mpfr 
Short Description: A C library for multiple-precision floating-point computations
Owners: varekova@redhat.com
Branches:
Comment 18 Ivana Varekova 2007-08-06 10:27:37 EDT
mpfr-2.2.1-1 package is just built. If there is any problem please create a
separate bug for this component.
Comment 19 Björn "besser82" Esser 2014-01-06 08:09:39 EST
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: mpfr
New Branches: el5
Owners: besser82
Comment 20 Jon Ciesla 2014-01-06 08:16:40 EST
Any comments from the Fedora maintainers?

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