Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Growl1234/rpm-review/refs/heads/elpa/elpa.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Growl1234/rpm-review/releases/download/elpa-1/elpa-2026.02.002-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: ELPA provides highly optimized direct eigensolvers for distributed-memory parallel systems. It supports one-stage and two-stage eigensolvers, MPI, OpenMP, and architecture-specific computational kernels. This is a re-review request for the unretirement of the existing elpa package. The package has been retired for two years and therefore requires a new package review. The package has been updated to ELPA 2026.02.002 and adjusted accordingly. It provides serial, MPICH, and Open MPI builds, including separate OpenMP-enabled libraries. It builds successfully on Fedora Rawhide, and the enabled test suites pass for the serial, MPICH, and Open MPI variants. Fedora Account System Username: growl Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10810637 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10810637-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
This comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.
Created attachment 2153573 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10810637 to 10810984
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10810984 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10810984-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Next time please indicate that this is an unretirement in the description (although if we are lucky we will have a whole new process for the next time :) ). I like the > Provides: %{name}-mpi-devel = %{version}-%{release} idea, but we might want to do something different with the mpi-5 ABI idea that is floating around. We can work on a change proposal together for that if you feel up for it? For now, let's just keep it the same like the other mpi packages. Please do the `%conf` split here. It is especially useful for mpi packages The prep steps look super sus. You should be able to do the `%configure` and `%make_build` in specific subdirectories similar to the cmake ones. Can you check if using `autoreconf` is possible for this package? Will need to do another license check, I really doubt that license tag is complete.
Created attachment 2153896 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10810984 to 10835222
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10835222 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10835222-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Created attachment 2154796 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10835222 to 10871764
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10871764 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10871764-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
- If you use autoreconf, might as well point the source to the git repo so that it is easier to navigate - There are few bundled codes to check - fdep (MIT), used only to create autotools, can skip from final license - ftimings (LGPL-3.0-or-later), missing `bundled` provides - src/shipped_srcs/* (MIT), no idea if it's used or not, but would need `bundled` - src/shipped_srcs/OPENCCL_TESTS has unknown providence, please ask about it - Are there discussions about upstreaming the patches? - `autoreconf` should be in %conf section - The flags overload is iffy, at least make a comment on why those choices - The x86_64 flags make this compatible only with x86_64-v3 [1]. This is a good case for looking on how can we distribute arch optimized libraries with `glibc-hwcaps`, and I even got recommended to talk with Florian about this. For now can we skip those, and investigate that together? - Are there scenarios where you want non-openmp version? Ideally both the openmp and mpi parallelization are configurable by the consumer or even the user. Can you check if at least the openmp one is/can be configurable? - Could you raise an issue with upstream about making the tests be runnable against a pre-installed elpa? Not a blocker here, but upstream should know that this would help us a lot with the build time and test navigability etc. - %ldconfig_scriplets are no-op (not actual no-op, but without RPATHs, it does nothing), please remove - Is there confirmation that the project is meant to be licensed under LGPL-3.0-only? BTW, years ago when I was in contact with them, they were open to migrate the build system to CMake. Would definitely help with a lot of complications that I can see from a mile away, but the m4 macros are daunting. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
Spec URL: https://growl.fedorapeople.org/reviews/elpa/elpa.spec SRPM URL: https://growl.fedorapeople.org/reviews/elpa/elpa-2026.02.002-8.fc46.src.rpm - Add "bundled(ftimings)", Drop x86_64-v3 specific flags, comment the flags overload, remove %ldconfig_scriplets, and move `autoreconf` steps to %conf
Created attachment 2155562 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10871764 to 10900313
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10900313 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2510919-elpa/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10900313-elpa/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/elpa Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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 believe you have seen https://github.com/marekandreas/elpa/issues/78, yet I want to mention some more things related to above comment here in case I forgot them: - `src/shipped_srcs/OPENCCL_TESTS`: I didn't find it but `src/shipped_srcs/ONECCL_TESTS` in the git repo, which was excluded in the release artifact in https://elpa.mpcdf.mpg.de/. This makes me hesitant about pointing the source to the git repo, as it most likely makes things complicated (about 7-8 MiB size vs. 2-3 MiB of release tarball, so maybe there would be not only oneccl_tests we have to concern). - Other files under `src/shipped_srcs`: Only `NVIDIA_A100_kernel/hh_test` in the release artifact, but it seems unlikely that they are compiled and included the CPU build. Unfortunately, the `LICENSE` file under that subfolder also doesn't explicitly said what general license they're following. - Regarding OpenMP, consumers can choose what they want: `elpa` for non-OpenMP building, and `elpa_openmp` for OpenMP building. - From https://elpa.mpcdf.mpg.de/LICENSING.html and copyright banner in the source files they only mentioned "LGPLv3"/"... the version 3 of the license of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation", so I think ELPA itself is under LGPL-3-only [iiuc LGPL-3-or-later programs should write things like "version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" in their banners].