Spec URL: http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec SRPM URL: http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071208-1.src.rpm Description: We refer to the step by step conversion from an algorithm that computes function values to an algorithm that computes derivative values as Algorithmic Differentiation (often referred to as Automatic Differentiation.) Given a C++ algorithm that computes function values, CppAD generates an algorithm that computes its derivative values. A brief introduction to Algorithmic Differentiation can be found at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_differentiation Documentation: HTML http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/cppad.htm MathML http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/cppad.xml
Seeking A Sponsor: I failed to mention in the description above that this is my first package, and I are seeking a sponsor. You can find out more about me at http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/.
Well, * First of all, would you remove all seemingly-unneeded comments? They make your spec file less easy to read. * Please consider to use %?_dist tag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag * For SourceURL, I recommend to %{version} (also %{name}) tag so that you won't have to modify the SourceURL when version is upgraded. * Why are the Summaries of (fake) main, -devel, -doc are all same? * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not needed for %prep * If some tests are executable, the move them to %check section and remove %{_validation_testing_during_rpmbuild} related description. * support parallel make if possible. * Please use macros. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros - For example, /usr must be %_prefix. - And please use %configure if possible (please check what %configure actually does by $ rpm --eval %configure ) * On %install if ! make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT then echo "Error during make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" exit 1 fi "exit 1" is not neede as rpmbuild executes shell script with "set -e" (i.e. if error occurs, the execution of shell script fails) * If this package does not create any debuginfo information, please refer to the section "Useless or incomplete debuginfo packages due to packaging issues" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo
A new version of http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec has been uploaded. (In reply to comment #2) > * First of all, would you remove all seemingly-unneeded comments? > They make your spec file less easy to read. Comments have been removed (except for those that are useful to a reviewer). > * Please consider to use %?_dist tag. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag Done. > > * For SourceURL, I recommend to %{version} (also %{name}) tag > so that you won't have to modify the SourceURL when version is > upgraded. Done. > > * Why are the Summaries of (fake) main, -devel, -doc are all same? The summaries and descriptions have been changed to be different for each of the sub-packages. > > * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not needed for %prep As per the instructions on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT has been moved to the %install section. > > * If some tests are executable, the move them to %check section > and remove %{_validation_testing_during_rpmbuild} related description. I cannot find any documentation or examples for using %check in a spec file. > > * support parallel make if possible. I think that the new BuildRoot command does this (but I cannot find documentation for %(%{__id_u} -n)). > > * Please use macros. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros > - For example, /usr must be %_prefix. Done. > - And please use %configure if possible (please check what > %configure actually does by > $ rpm --eval %configure ) Currently, --with-Documentation is needed on the cppad configure line to get the documentation. By default, no documentation is installed and people use the web version (which changes as the trunk of cppad changes). If it is important, this could be changed. > > * On %install > if ! make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT > then > echo "Error during make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" > exit 1 > fi > > "exit 1" is not neede as rpmbuild executes shell script with > "set -e" (i.e. if error occurs, the execution of shell script > fails) > Checking for program failures has been removed. > * If this package does not create any debuginfo information, please > refer to the section "Useless or incomplete debuginfo packages > due to packaging issues" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo A BuildArch: noarch command has been added.
Please provide a new srpm also (which release number changed every time you modify your spec/srpm) so that we can try to rebuild your srpm easily. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * If some tests are executable, the move them to %check section > > and remove %{_validation_testing_during_rpmbuild} related description. > > I cannot find any documentation or examples for using %check in a spec file. For example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/ruby-romkan/ruby-romkan.spec http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/tokyocabinet/tokyocabinet.spec > > * support parallel make if possible. > > I think that the new BuildRoot command does this (but I cannot find > documentation for %(%{__id_u} -n)). Well, please refer to the section "Parallel make" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines (paralle make I say here has no relation with %_id_u) > > - And please use %configure if possible (please check what > > %configure actually does by > > $ rpm --eval %configure ) > > Currently, --with-Documentation is needed on the cppad configure line to get the > documentation. Doesn't "%configure --with-Documentation" work? > > * Please use macros. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros > > - For example, /usr must be %_prefix. > > Done. Please use more (please check "RPMMacros" page again). /usr/include, /usr/share/doc must be changed. BTW files under %_docdir are automatically marked as %doc. !! # 2. What does the '?' mean in the Release command below ? As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag, --------------------------------------------------------- If %{dist} is defined, insert its value here. If not, do nothing. --------------------------------------------------------- # 3. What does the __id_u and -n mean in the BuildRoot command below ? You can check this by $ rpm --eval %__id_u $ rpm --eval '%(%__id_u -n)' to see what actually happens.
A new version of http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec has been uploaded. (In reply to comment #4) > Please provide a new srpm also (which release number changed every > time you modify your spec/srpm) so that we can try to rebuild your > srpm easily. Done. The old rpm has been deleted and the new rpm is http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071208-2.fc7.src.rpm > > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > * If some tests are executable, the move them to %check section > > > and remove %{_validation_testing_during_rpmbuild} related description. > The %check command is used for the validation tests and %{_validation_testing_during_rpmbuild} has been removed. As currently implemented, the tests are compiled and run each time an rpmbuild command is executed. I am not sure if this is the best solution. Perhaps there is a standard way to skip this using the rpmbuild command line. > > > * support parallel make if possible. The %{?_smp_mflags} argument has been added to the make command > Doesn't "%configure --with-Documentation" work? Yes it does and the spec file has been changed to use %configure. > > Please use more (please check "RPMMacros" page again). > /usr/include, /usr/share/doc must be changed. Done. > > BTW files under %_docdir are automatically marked as %doc. > The %doc command has been removed from infont of %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}.
* Source tarball - Well, I tried to download the source from the written SourceURL, however only I could find CppAD-2.0.1.tgz? (source tarball check is needed for license check) * Build option - build.log says: --------------------------------------------------------- 52 checking --with-Documentation... yes 53 checking --with-Introduction... no 54 checking --with-Example... yes 55 checking --with-TestMore... yes 56 checking --with-Speed... no 57 checking --with-PrintFor... no 58 checking --with-stdvector... no --------------------------------------------------------- You don't set some conditional configure option. Would you please explain why? * Timestamps - As this is noarch and the installed files are only texts, keeping timestamps on installed files is highly preferable. For this package, the following keeps timestamps. ---------------------------------------------------------- %prep %setup -q sed -i.stamp -e 's|cp -r|cp -a|' makefile %build ..... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT export CPPROG="cp -p" make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ....... ---------------------------------------------------------- * macros in %changelog - When you try "$ rpm -q --changelog cppad", you will see ---------------------------------------------------------- * Thu Dec 20 2007 Brad Bell ( bradell at seanet dot com ) 20071203-2 - Use the commands CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:--O2}" ; export CFLAGS ; CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:--O2}" ; export CXXFLAGS ; FFLAGS="${FFLAGS:--O2}" ; export FFLAGS ; for i in $(find . -name config.guess -o -name config.sub) ; do [ -f /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/$(basename $i) ] && /bin/rm -f $i && /bin/cp -fv /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/$(basename $i) $i ; done ; ......... ---------------------------------------------------------- i.e. macros in %changelog are expanded (you can gain the warning about these by rpmlint). To avoid this, use %% in %changelog to stop macros expanding. ---------------------------------------------------------- * Wed Dec 20 2007 Brad Bell < bradell at seanet dot com > 20071203-2 - Use the commands %%configure, %%check ----------------------------------------------------------- BTW I recommend to use <>, not () for mail address. * Argument list too long - By the way, when I try normal rpmbuild: ------------------------------------------------------------ [tasaka1@localhost SPECS]$ LANG=C rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit cppad.spec Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.58659 + umask 022 + cd /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd cppad-20071208 ....... cp -r ./doc/* /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/cppad-20071208-2.fc8_p-root-tasaka1/usr/share/doc/cppad-20071208 chmod 644 /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/cppad-20071208-2.fc8_p-root-tasaka1/usr/share/doc/cppad-20071208/* /bin/sh: /bin/chmod: Argument list too long make[3]: *** [install-data-hook] Error 126 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/cppad-20071208' make[2]: *** [install-data-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/cppad-20071208' make[1]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD/cppad-20071208' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.58659 (%install) ---------------------------------------------------------- * Some rpmlint $ rpmlint <your srpm> shows: ------------------------------------------------------------ cppad.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 5) cppad.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot cppad base package (not installed). ------------------------------------------------------------ Please fix these (you can check what these mean by $ rpmlint -I mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs , for example)
(In reply to comment #6) > * Source tarball > - Well, I tried to download the source from the written SourceURL, > however only I could find CppAD-2.0.1.tgz? > (source tarball check is needed for license check) The cppad package is maintained using COIN-OR which prefers the CPL license http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php Because some of CppAD users prefer GPL, both available for download from http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/download.htm The distribution files on this web page correspond to the trunk of the svn repository and the version number changes each day; i.e., the corresponding files are today called http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/cppad-20071221.cpl.tgz http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/cppad-20071221.gpl.tgz The tarball CppAD-2.0.1.tgz is different in that is a direct copy of the subversion repository corresponding to version 20071016 of CppAD. If one executes the following commands tar -xzf CppAD-2.0.1 cd CppAD-2.0.1 ./build all It will create the file cppad-20071016.gpl.tgz (GPL license, Unix file format) and also create cppad-20071016.cpl.tgz (CPL license, Unix file format) cppad-20071016.cpl.zip (CPL license, Dos file format) cppad-20071016.gpl.zip (GPL license, Dos file format) This process builds the documentation and hence one needs a copy of OMhelp to do this. OMhelp is distributed with the GPL license at http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/omhelp/installunix.htm All of the *.tgz and *.zip files contain the necessary OMhelp source to rebuild the documentation. 1. Which license would Fedora prefer to use ? 2. Does this make CppAD depend on the OMhelp package because it is used to build the documentation from the source code files ?
Using daily snapshot tarball is not preferable. We must make it sure that how we can gain the source tarballs which are actually used in your srpm. Ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL If you want to use svn tarball, you must follow the section "Using Revision Control" of the wiki page. Also you have to follow "Snapshot packages" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines For me it seems that you can just use CppAD-2.0.1.tgz (and do configure and make as normal) The license tag can be "CPL or GPLv2+" (i.e. dual of CPL and GPLv2+).
For license tag, for example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/mecab/mecab.spec
Oops, I have not checked the version of GPL in detail. I will check later (but please update your srpm first)
(In reply to comment #6) A new version of http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec has been uploaded. The corresponding rpm source file is http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071221-1.fc7.src.rpm > * Source tarball > - Well, I tried to download the source from the written SourceURL, > however only I could find CppAD-2.0.1.tgz?> (source tarball check is needed for license check) I am working on how to best solve this problem (see comment number 7 for more details). > > * Build option > - build.log says: > --------------------------------------------------------- > 52 checking --with-Documentation... yes > 53 checking --with-Introduction... no > 54 checking --with-Example... yes > 55 checking --with-TestMore... yes > 56 checking --with-Speed... no > 57 checking --with-PrintFor... no > 58 checking --with-stdvector... no > --------------------------------------------------------- > You don't set some conditional configure option. Would you > please explain why? The Introduction and Speed options have been added to the %configure and %check sections of cppad.spec. The PrintFor option builds a test that is not automated (the users actually looks at the output). The stdvector option replaces the template vector class that has the most extensive testing. The standard vector template class is just one of three choices (and the default is being used by the current spec file). > > * Timestamps > - As this is noarch and the installed files are only texts, > keeping timestamps on installed files is highly preferable. > > For this package, the following keeps timestamps. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > %prep > %setup -q > > sed -i.stamp -e 's|cp -r|cp -a|' makefile > > %build > ..... > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > export CPPROG="cp -p" > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT > ....... This has been fixed in the corresponding upstream makefile.am by using the cp -a command (this made it necessary to increase the version number of cppad). > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > i.e. macros in %changelog are expanded (you can gain the warning > about these by rpmlint). > To avoid this, use %% in %changelog to stop macros expanding. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > * Wed Dec 20 2007 Brad Bell < bradell at seanet dot com > 20071203-2 > - Use the commands %%configure, %%check > ----------------------------------------------------------- Done. > BTW I recommend to use <>, not () for mail address. Done. > > * Argument list too long > - By the way, when I try normal rpmbuild: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [tasaka1@localhost SPECS]$ LANG=C rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit cppad.spec > Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.58659 > + umask 022 > + cd /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/BUILD > + cd cppad-20071208 > ....... > cp -r ./doc/* > This has also been fixed in the upstream makefile.am file by copying the directory instead of files; i.e. cp -r ./doc/* should now be cp -a ./doc This error did not occur on my test system, so please see if the fix works for you. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > * Some rpmlint > $ rpmlint <your srpm> shows: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > cppad.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 5) > cppad.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot cppad base package (not installed). > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Please fix these (you can check what these mean by > $ rpmlint -I mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs , for example) Fixed.
I will wait for source tarball solution.
(In reply to comment #12) A new version of http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec has been uploaded. The corresponding rpm source file is http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071225-1.fc7.src.rpm > I will wait for source tarball solution. The directory http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/download/ has been created for storing archived versions of the CppAD source code. The source code corresponding to the source rpm above is http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/download/cppad-20071225.gpl.tgz The cppad.spec files %Source command points to this file.
Well, I will check it later. BTW this is a NEEDSPONSOR ticket, so: ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html (NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review") Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------
For 20071225-1: * Requires: - %_includedir/%name/local/test_vector.hpp contains --------------------------------------------------------------- 101 # if CPPAD_BOOSTVECTOR 102 # include <boost/numeric/ublas/vector.hpp> 103 # define CPPAD_TEST_VECTOR boost::numeric::ublas::vector 104 # endif --------------------------------------------------------------- Does this mean that cppad-devel should have "Requires: boost-devel"? - IMO it is bettar that this package has "Requires: libstdc++-devel". * Timestamps - As this package installs text files only, keeping timestamps on installed files is highly preferred. As "make install" uses install-sh, perhaps the following method works for keeping timestamps. --------------------------------------------------------------- %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT export CPPROG="cp -p" make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT --------------------------------------------------------------- * Documents - Please add the following document(s) to %doc in -devel. --------------------------------------------------------------- AUTHORS ChangeLog ---------------------------------------------------------------
(In reply to comment #15) A new version of http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec has been uploaded. The corresponding rpm source file is http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071225-2.fc7.src.rpm > For 20071225-1: > > * Requires: > - %_includedir/%name/local/test_vector.hpp contains > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 101 # if CPPAD_BOOSTVECTOR > 102 # include <boost/numeric/ublas/vector.hpp> > 103 # define CPPAD_TEST_VECTOR boost::numeric::ublas::vector > 104 # endif > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Does this mean that cppad-devel should have > "Requires: boost-devel"? The preprocessor symbol CPPAD_TEST_VECTOR is used to change which template vector class is used for a large number of the CppAD tests. If the option --with-stdvector is included on the CppAD configure command line, the standard vector template class is used for these tests. If the option BOOST_DIR=BoostDir is included on the CppAD configure command line, the boost vector class will be used for these tests (and in this case, boost will need to be installed on the system to run the tests). The possible CppAD configure options are documented under the heading Configure on the web page http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/Doc/installunix.htm Currently, all of the options, except for the --prefix and --with-Documentation options, only determine what is tested and in no way change how the final CppAD installation works. Some of the options require other packages to be installed because they either test CppAD working with the other packages or compare CppAD with other packages. > > - IMO it is bettar that this package has "Requires: > libstdc++-devel". All CppAD requires is a version of C++ that conforms to the language standard; see ISO/IEC 14882. Does the library mentioned above somehow make up for a deficiency (lack of support for standard library functions) in some C++ compilers ? > > * Timestamps > - As this package installs text files only, keeping timestamps > on installed files is highly preferred. > As "make install" uses install-sh, perhaps the following method > works for keeping timestamps. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > export CPPROG="cp -p" > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT > --------------------------------------------------------------- I am not sure what the timestamps should correspond to. For example, the file /usr/include/cppad/cppad.hpp is over a month old; see https://projects.coin-or.org/CppAD/browser/trunk/cppad/cppad.hpp but its time stamp is December 25 (when the tarball was created). In addition, there is an extra difficulty for the timestamps of the GPL license version. The corresponding files are created from the CPL license version by having sed change the copyright message in each of the source code files (COIN-OR has been given permission to make this change). > > * Documents > - Please add the following document(s) to %doc in -devel. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > AUTHORS > ChangeLog > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Done. In addition, the file uw_copy_040507.html is included because it is referenced by AUTHORS.
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > For 20071225-1: > > > > * Requires: > > - %_includedir/%name/local/test_vector.hpp contains > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > 101 # if CPPAD_BOOSTVECTOR > > 102 # include <boost/numeric/ublas/vector.hpp> > > 103 # define CPPAD_TEST_VECTOR boost::numeric::ublas::vector > > 104 # endif > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Does this mean that cppad-devel should have > > "Requires: boost-devel"? > > The preprocessor symbol CPPAD_TEST_VECTOR is used to change which template > vector class is used for a large number of the CppAD tests. Okay. > > - IMO it is bettar that this package has "Requires: > > libstdc++-devel". > > All CppAD requires is a version of C++ that conforms to the language standard; > see ISO/IEC 14882. Okay. > > * Timestamps > > - As this package installs text files only, keeping timestamps > > on installed files is highly preferred. > > As "make install" uses install-sh, perhaps the following method > > works for keeping timestamps. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > %install > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > > > export CPPROG="cp -p" > > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > I am not sure what the timestamps should correspond to. Timestamps of the codes in tarball if possible.
BTW I am waiting for your pre-review or another review request as in comment 14.
(In reply to comment #18) > BTW I am waiting for your pre-review or another review request > as in comment 14. As I understand your comment above, and item B in comment #14, I should review one of the packages listed at. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html My work involves software implementation of numerical methods for scientific data analysis. The packages listed below seem appropriate for me to review. Would you like to suggest one, or should I just pick one myself ? R-packages: (statistical analysis of data) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=240497 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244237 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244234 xdms: (numerical methods and C++) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=326421 python numeric (numerical methods) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226345 bison (a tool I use) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225616 valgrind (a tool I use) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226522 doxygen (a tool I use I should learn more about) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225709 electric fense (I have written similar tools) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225722 P.S. I have looked at the package corresponding to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244234 and added comment #7 to that report.
Well, - I am not familiar with R.. and R has special packaging guidelines. - And please don't choose "Merge Review" Perhaps it is better that you choose more recent review requests for pre-review.
OK and glad I asked. I am not familiar with perl, but I think I can quickly learn enough to do a review. The following package has not had any response yet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426561 Would it be appropriate ?
Okay you can try.
(In reply to comment #22) > Okay you can try. I was going though the review check list gathering all the information I could. By the time I got back to the bug, two of the four issues I had noticed had already been pointed out. I therefore decided to download the new spec file and souce and check the remaining to issues. When they were still outstanding, I decided to post my them immediately. See comment #6 in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426561 I was hasty in doing so, and had not read the entire page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl carefully. Sorry about that.
Well, okay. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This package (cppad) is APPROVED by me ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor (at the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship) Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 7/8, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
I have gone back over the cppad rpm with the review check list, just to be as careful as possible before starting the process above. Using the techniques I used to check geoqo.spec, I and found a problem. There are three (special case) files in http://www.coin-or.org/CppAD/download/cppad-20071225.gpl.tgz that had the wrong copyright message (CPL instead of GPL); namely makefile.am mainfile.in omh/license.omh This problem was only in the short copyright message at the top and does not affect the output of the license in the documentation. I can patch the source, but this does not seem like proper procedure to me. I think it is better to fixed this in the upstream version. Would fixing this in the upstream source be OK with you ?
(In reply to comment #25) > I can patch the source, but this does not seem like proper procedure to me. Actually. > I > think it is better to fixed this in the upstream version. Would fixing this in > the upstream source be OK with you ? Okay for this package.
I have uploaded a new spec file http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad.spec and a new source rpm http://www.seanet.com/~bradbell/cppad/cppad-20071229-1.fc7.src.rpm that fix the problem mentioned in comment #25. I do not know of any problems with these and plan to use them for the submission. Next I will follow your suggestions in comment #24
Back on 12/14 I signed up for a Fedora account and received a copy of the CLA. During this process I set up a pgp key and password. I am new to pgp I was very protective of the password. So much so, that my hand written note about it is not explicit enough for me to recreate it. Thus, I have lost my password (sorry about that). How should I proceed ?
It may be better that you ask it on fedora-devel-list (perhaps there will be some people who are much more familiar with FAS than me)
I received help from accounts, solved the gpg problem, have signed the CLA, and received a successful confirmation.
(In reply to comment #24) > Well, okay. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This package (cppad) is APPROVED by me > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please follow the procedure according to: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join > from "Get a Fedora Account". > At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies > that you need a sponsor (at the stage, please also write on > this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship) I am uncertain if the text in parenthesis means that I should write up a new bug report for this project; i.e., restart a project review request ? > Then I will sponsor you. > > ...
(In reply to comment #31) > > (at the stage, please also write on > > this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship) > > I am uncertain if the text in parenthesis means that I should write up a new bug > report for this project; i.e., restart a project review request ? > Please read the section "Get a Fedora Account" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join ------------------------------------------------------------- At the bottom, where it says "Add new membership", put cvsextras in Groupname. Leave Role Type as user, and Role Domain empty. * Once this is submitted, your account will show up as "pending" to all of the Fedora Package Collection sponsors (who will receive an email). ------------------------------------------------------------- At this stage sponsor member should receive a mail that you have requested sponsorship. But I want to make sure with what account name you requested. So when you have done this stage, please also write in this stage that you actually requested sponsorship with your Fedora account name.
I think that I know what happened. On the web page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join under Get a Fedora Account the following text appears Once this is submitted, your account will show up as "pending" to all of the Fedora Package Collection sponsors (who will receive an email). Because the word "submitted" was used, I chose the "Submit" button in stead of the "Add" button in the Fedora Account Login window. I will try selecting the "Add" button and see if this works.
Now I should be sponsoring you. Please proceed.
I am working through some of the steps in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join and am currently at Add Package to CVS and Set Owner which directs me to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure In these procedures it states: "After your package is approved by the Package Review Process, you may request for a CVS module to be created. Please copy this template into your Bugzilla comment, and set fedora-cvs flag to ?" The problem is that when I select "Requests" near the top of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/request.cgi there is no field labeled "comment" (to be filled in with the appropriate text). Perhaps one is not supposed to create a new item using the "Requests" tab for this step of the procedures ?
The CVSAdminProcedure wiki page says that you have to - copy the template into _this_ bug ticket - fill in the blank as Example - and set fedora-cvs flag seen below in _this_ bug to ? .
I want to be certain before submitting the a fedora-cvs request with the following field values Package Name: cppad Short Description: A Package for Differentiation of C++ Algorithms Owners: bradbell Cvsextras Commits: yes Perhaps your fedora account name (mtasaka) should be added to the or Owners or InitialCC fields. Perhaps a Branches entry should be added, but the following text from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure seems to indicate that is not necessary: "The devel branch is implicit and always created, so you need not list it."
You don't have to add my FAS name to CC or owners. If you want to do, you can. As written the current valid branches are F-7 F-8 EL-4 EL-5 OLPC-2. For example, if you want to maintain this package on Fedora 8, you have to add "Branches: F-8". Only "devel" branch is automatically created.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cppad Short Description: A Package for Differentiation of C++ Algorithms Owners: bradbell Branches: F-7 F-8 Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
With the help of Kevin, I have completed the cvs-import.sh for F-7, F-8, and devel as per the instructions on page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join under the heading Import Your Package. It appears from the next two headings on the web page mentioned above, Checkout the module and Tag Your Branches, that the next step is to check out a fresh copy of cppad and then execute the command make tag in each of the branch directoies; i.e., F-7, F-8, and devel. But it appears that the branches have already been tagged. To be specific, in response to make tag in the devel branch, I get the message: ERROR: Tag cppad-20071229-1_fc9 has been already created. The following tags have been created so far cppad-20071229-1_fc9:devel:bradbell:1199571942 cppad-20071229-1_fc7:F-7:bradbell:1199572233 cppad-20071229-1_fc8:F-8:bradbell:1199572567 cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed P.S. As I understand it, I will need 'koji' install to properly execute the make build command. I am currently using Cygwin and there does not seem to be a version of koji for that system. I am trying to get a version of Fedora up in a virtual environment on my home machine, but I am having some problems doing so. Sorry for the delay.
Would you try to rebuild cppad on koji? If some troubles still exist, please tell me.
My trouble is related to my DSL modem at home. It seems to connect fine through Windows, but I am having trouble connecting through Fedora. I think I have found someone I know who may be capable of solving the problem. In the meantime, I am using cygwin to access Fedora's cvs repository and Kevin has been helping me by submitting my builds and reporting back the results; see the changelog in http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/cppad/devel/cppad.spec?rev=1.3&view=auto
In the buildlog http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=337551&name=build.log the following line appears: + ./configure --build=ppc-redhat-linux-gnu --host=ppc-redhat-linux-gnu ... Does this mean that the tests are being run on a Power PC. The cppad test suite assume that DPL_EPSILON is about 1e-14 or smaller, but perhaps this is not the case. I am considering writing a spec files change with the purpose of printing out the value of DBL_EPSILON on the target machine. Is this how people normally proceed in a case like this (because one cannot expect to log into the machine and run the code in the debugger) ? P.S. I think that I have to access koji from one of my personal machines; I plan to try it with this change.
Yes, that means a ppc machine was picked out of the build pool to build this (since it's noarch). Is it really noarch though? I see it calling g++? I have a ppc32 machine here running rawhide you are welcome to use to test... just drop me a ssh key in an email and I will add you an account.
cppad is a library of C++ include files. The rpmbuild command is set to run a set of the tests. These tests are intended to make sure that cppad is functioning properly on the target machine. While the rpm and distributed files do not depend on the architecture, the test results do. I thought that, in the noarch case, koji ran the rpmbuild on multiple machines to see that all the tests passed. Perhaps I was mistaken in this. I plan to add printing of DBL_EPSILON during the first test, just to make sure of its value. If the test fails, and the value of DBL_EPSILON does not explain it, I will try Kevin's offer in comment #45.
The following build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=340117&name=build.log contains the text: + speed/example/example correct 123 Ok: det_of_minor Ok: det_by_minor Ok: det_by_lu Error: speed_test 1 tests failed. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.40577 (%check) These are correctness tests (not speed tests), but speed_test checks that speed tests results will be correct (hence in a way it is a speed test). It probably failed because the build system is busy doing lots of things. I am going to change the cppad.spec file so that it execludes speed_test. I have a question of a general nature about version numbers: I am currently debugging the build on one branch, F-8. When I get done, I expect to copy the changes over to the other branches and run them there. Should I use the same version number for all the branches, or should each branch use the lowest possible version number for that branch ?
(In reply to comment #47) > I have a question of a general nature about version numbers: I am currently > debugging the build on one branch, F-8. When I get done, I expect to copy the > changes over to the other branches and run them there. Should I use the same > version number for all the branches, or should each branch use the lowest > possible version number for that branch ? > Well, the EVR (Epoch:Version:Release) must be kept in order that devel > F-8 > F-7. If current F-8 EVR is 20071229-5.fc8, then F-7 EVR must be smaller than 20071229-5.fc8 (20071229-5.fc7 is okay), and devel EVR must be larger than 20071229-5.fc8 (20071229-5.fc9 is okay).
The builds of cppad-20071229-6 appears to have been successful on all the branches; i.e., F-7, F-8, and devel; see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=344386 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=344323 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=344366
Okay. Then for F-7 and F-8 please request to push cppad to stable or testing repository using bodhi system and close this bug as NEXTRELEASE.
I have created an update for F-7 using the bodhi web interface; see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F7/pending/cppad-20071229-6.fc7 I think that the next step is to push to stable, but I do not see how that is done using the web interface.
You can "edit" the bodhi request to make cppad pushed to stable. Also, please request also for F-8 bodhi on bodhi.
When I select Edit from the web page https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F7/pending/cppad-20071229-6.fc7 I do not see a way to select "push", the fields I see are listed below. In addition, I am uncertain as to the meaning of the "Close Bugs when update is stable" check box, does this mean it will close the cppad review request bug ? Package: a one line text entry field. Add another build: a button type field. Release: a select from a list field. Type: a select from a list field. Request: a select from a list field. Bugs: a one line text entry field. Close Bugs when update is stable: a check box. Notes: a multiple line text entry field. Suggest Reboot: a check box. Save Update: a push button.
"Close bugs when update is stable" is used when the requested rpms resolves the issues reported on the corresponding bugs. For example, see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F7/FEDORA-2008-0517 As far as I see your cppad F-7 request it is correct. So please request for F-8 cppad also and close this bug as NEXTRELEASE.
The web page for the F-8 update is https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/pending/cppad-20071229-6.fc8 I am closing this bug as NEXTRELEASE. Thanks !
cppad-20071229-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
cppad-20071229-6.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: cppad New Branches: EL-5