Bug 566964 - Review Request: spooles - sparse matrix library
Summary: Review Request: spooles - sparse matrix library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dan Horák
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 566972
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-02-20 19:07 UTC by Manfred Spraul
Modified: 2012-12-16 13:27 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-12-16 13:27:00 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dan: fedora-review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Manfred Spraul 2010-02-20 19:07:03 UTC
spooles is a library for working with sparse matrices.
It is not yet supported by Fedora.

Link to .srpm:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/calculix-rpm/files/fedora/libspooles-2.2-1.fc12.src.rpm/download

Details on the base package:
- http://www.netlib.org/linalg/spooles/spooles.2.2.html
- the spooles library is in the public domain.
- one IO file [Utilities/src/iohb.c] uses a BSD license. It probably could be removed.
- it works on 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. The debug printf's might be broken on 64-bit archs
- there are serial, parallel [pthread] and MPI functions.


Details on the .rpm:
- two rpms: libspooles and libspooles-devel
- header files are copied into /usr/include/spooles/
The same path is used by debian.
- the serial and parallel version are built as a shared library (/usr/lib/libspooles.so)
- MPI is not included.
As far as I understand the packaging guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI), MPI libraries should be separate rpms and should be provided for all supported MPI implementations.
This is a binary incompatibility to the debian .deb file: debian builds one big .so file with serial, parallel and mpi.
- the documentation [provided as .tex files, fixes necessary - at least psfig must be replaced] is not built.
- the license is set to BSD as the most restrictive license.

Comment 2 Dan Horák 2010-02-22 10:50:37 UTC
Here are issues found during my first run on the package:
- the package name must be "spooles" as is the project's and the source archive name (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming)
- the libspooles.so symlink belongs to the devel subpackage
- the format of changelog entries is wrong - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
- when macro names are used in changelog entries, they must be prefixed with % so they are not interpreted there

Comment 3 Terje Røsten 2010-02-22 12:09:43 UTC
A good start Manfred, some updates to assist you:
 - align tags
 - < 80 in %desc
 - drop cd ${RPM_BUILD_DIR}/%{name}-%{version}, it's not needed
 - change rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* to rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 - simplify %install
 - move libspooles.so to -devel
 - clean up changelog

spec:  http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/libspooles/libspooles.spec
patch: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/libspooles/libspooles.spec.patch

If you could do a koji scratch build from srpm that would be nice:
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_builds_2

Comment 4 Dan Horák 2010-11-18 15:20:06 UTC
Manfred, are you still interested in getting the Calculix stuff into Fedora?

Comment 5 Manfred Spraul 2010-11-21 17:38:01 UTC
I'd like to, but I did not have the time to make further steps.
My only progress since February is merge of upstream changes :-(

Is is possible that you leave the bug reports open until after Christmas?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/calculix-rpm/files/rel-2.2/

Comment 6 Dan Horák 2010-11-21 18:17:14 UTC
Thanks for the response and have no worries, the review can wait.

Comment 7 Terje Røsten 2011-09-12 05:41:59 UTC
Any updates soon or is the review dead?

Comment 8 Manfred Spraul 2011-09-20 15:09:28 UTC
You can mark the review as dead, unfortunately :-(
I'll continue to maintain the package, but it's difficult for me to find time to update it if the upstream package is updated.
Thus it's not realistic that I'll be able to maintain an official Fedora package properly.

If someone else is interested in taking it over, I'd support that.

Comment 9 Miroslav Suchý 2012-12-16 13:27:00 UTC
Closing per #8


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