Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 864162
scotch is miss-packaged wrt mpi guidelines
Last modified: 2014-08-08 10:53:57 EDT
According to the MPI packaging guidelines here:
1) be support for more than one MPI compiler. (Only Mpich2 is currently supported.)
2) be a separate package for the MPI libraries and executables and serial versions. (The package installs the MPI libraries and executables on standard paths with no decoration.)
Created attachment 623652 [details]
Proposed spec file
Created attachment 623653 [details]
Created attachment 623654 [details]
Is there a plan to implement the new spec file? I'm willing to do the extra work.
Erik, Laurence, if you're a Fedora packager already, please apply for co-maintainership of this package in pkgdb: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/scotch
I'm also interested in getting this bug fixed because a package I maintain (freefem++) grew a dependency on scotch recently.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 17 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 17. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora
'version' of '17'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 17 is end of life. If you
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it
against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the
'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.
Sorry, I don't have time to become a maintainer. I only use Fedora at work (I actually prefer Gentoo ;-), but the problem is still there. I've bumped the version to 19.
I'm not a packager unfortunately. I am willing to do it but I need a sponsor. I am interested in packaging the fish shell:
In any case I can test the new scotch .spec file for you. I can look at it at the weekend.
Created attachment 768768 [details]
New spec file
I've updated the scotch version in my spec file. I've only tested building the rpms with this one, but it was only a small bump in the version number.
I have a question:
Should scotch actually be split into two separate packages, scotch and ptscotch? ptscotch would have a dependency on scotch. It would look like:
ptscotch-common (contains man pages and docs)
And also a ptscotch-devel package containing the header files.
(In reply to Erik Zeek from comment #9)
> Created attachment 768768 [details]
> New spec file
> I've updated the scotch version in my spec file. I've only tested building
> the rpms with this one, but it was only a small bump in the version number.
I am sincerely sorry for neglecting this bug, I will rather not bother you with excuses on why I have not been able to respond to bug for so long.
I very much appreciates Erik Zeek work on the spec (and Laurence contributions also), thank you. I have finally committed the new spec with few changes (Comment #10).
Do you have any particular reasons for creating the *-static sub-packages? I am inclined to dropping them.
I am considering making further changes in packaging the static libraries only within the main scotch package and making the ptscotch sub-packages dependent on it.
(In reply to Deji Akingunola from comment #12)
> (In reply to Erik Zeek from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 768768 [details]
> > New spec file
> > I've updated the scotch version in my spec file. I've only tested building
> > the rpms with this one, but it was only a small bump in the version number.
> I am sincerely sorry for neglecting this bug, I will rather not bother you
> with excuses on why I have not been able to respond to bug for so long.
> I very much appreciates Erik Zeek work on the spec (and Laurence
> contributions also), thank you. I have finally committed the new spec with
> few changes (Comment #10).
No need to apologize.
> Do you have any particular reasons for creating the *-static sub-packages? I
> am inclined to dropping them.
I had no reason for them. The package I based the changes on (I forget which) had it. I don't need the static libraries.
> I am considering making further changes in packaging the static libraries
> only within the main scotch package and making the ptscotch sub-packages
> dependent on it.
I have no objections to any changes you want to make. I just preferred openmpi and it wasn't supported.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
Closing since this was fixed some time ago.