Bug 473593 - lam : Unowned directories
lam : Unowned directories
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: lam (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Doug Ledford
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 225979
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-11-29 11:38 EST by Michael Schwendt
Modified: 2009-05-22 09:42 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-05-22 09:42:28 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michael Schwendt 2008-11-29 11:38:11 EST
One or more directories are not included within this
package and/or its sub-packages:

=> 2:lam-7.1.4-1.fc10.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)

=> 2:lam-devel-7.1.4-1.fc10.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)


Further information:


MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.

Comment 1 Christoph Wickert 2009-01-30 17:06:04 EST
(In reply to comment #0)
> One or more directories are not included within this
> package and/or its sub-packages:
> => 2:lam-7.1.4-1.fc10.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
> /usr/lib/lam/man
> /usr/lib/lam/man/man5
> /usr/lib/lam/man/man7
> /usr/lib/lam/man/man1

There is certainly more going wrong than just unowned dirs. The mandir is incorrect.
Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2009-01-31 06:13:43 EST
See latest %changelog comment. It's some weird packaging that relocates _all_ file trees in all packages to /usr/lib/lam, so none of this can be used directly.
Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2009-01-31 07:43:32 EST
Running ldconfig is useless with libs stored outside runtime-linker's search path. The package also ought to filter its automatic SONAME Provides for the same reason.
Comment 4 Christoph Wickert 2009-01-31 08:19:11 EST
Some more observations from a quick look over the spec:

'Group: Development/Libraries' for the base package seems wrong to me.

The description is way to long.

'Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig' for the libs package is not necessary, because rpm will pick this up automatically as you are using
'%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig'

The libs and the devel packages' descriptions are not ending with dots.

All the 'alternatives --remove ' stuff should only be run on updates, see 

No need to %exclude the files in %{mpidir}/bin/ from the base package because they are in lam-devel.
Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2009-02-01 07:14:10 EST
Note that merge review for this package is not finished yet.
Comment 6 Doug Ledford 2009-05-20 09:35:38 EDT
The unowned directories have been fixed.  As for the locations of the files, real world usage of MPI stacks does not work with FHS file layouts.  The need to have more than one MPI implementation installed (sometimes multiple copies of the exact same implementation and version, just compiled with a different compiler) is pretty common/pervasive.  The use of the alternatives program also falls far short of the mark as a system wide default simply doesn't work.  Even a per user default falls short of the mark.  Hence the use of environment-modules.

I've also updated the description to note that LAM is deprecated.  I don't intend to make any further updates to LAM, and hopefully it will die a peaceful death by F12.

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