Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.8.7-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: CoinUtils (Coin-or Utilities) is an open-source collection of classes and functions that are generally useful to more than one COIN-OR project. These utilities include: * Vector classes * Matrix classes * MPS file reading * Comparing floating point numbers with a tolerance Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
Note that the tarball is remade due to: + Data files without a clean license. licensecheck does not trigger it because they are small test case files, but a not so small collection, and authorship information was lost. + ThirdParty directory, that points to, but has no contents, of non free code (usually source code open but needs some kind of paid license to be able to use). + Most coin-or projects bundle other coin-or projects that are dependencies. If tarballs are not repackaged, %build will remove the bundled dependencies. I made the original package back in september and was talking from time to time to upstream about the issues above. There should be at some point in the near future a new release with bundled dependencies and code that cannot be redistributed removed from tarballs. There is also a way to get "clean" tarballs from coin-or trac, but for the review request I did choose the most common method in Fedora for these conditions.
Update: - Add coin-or-Sample to build requires (#894610#c4). - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc19.src.rpm
Issues, in no particular order: 1. The documentation is quite large. This can be remedied by NOT listing graphviz as a BR. Then dot won't generate the big class diagrams. I've had to do this for several of my packages, as the interaction diagrams grow quite large. 2. Version 2.9.0 came out 2 days ago. (I checked because of the "latest version is packaged" question below.) 3. The undefined non-weak symbols reported below indicate that the library needs to be linked with -lz -lbz2. 4. The BRs list both atlas-devel, and also blas-devel and lapack-devel. Since atlas is a replacement for the standard blas and lapack, I'm confused. Which one are you trying to use? Also, the final requires don't show either, so are any of them really needed at all? Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 26152960 bytes in 2206 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 28293120 bytes in /usr/share 28272640 coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 20480 coin-or- CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: coin-or-CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint coin-or-CoinUtils coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzopen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzclose coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzRead coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzwrite coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWriteClose coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWriteOpen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzReadOpen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 dgetrf_ coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzread coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 dgetrs_ coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWrite coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzReadClose 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- coin-or-CoinUtils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-CoinUtils-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-CoinUtils(x86-64) coin-or-Sample libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) Provides -------- coin-or-CoinUtils: coin-or-CoinUtils coin-or-CoinUtils(x86-64) libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) coin-or-CoinUtils-devel: coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-CoinUtils-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(coinutils) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 894585 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
(In reply to comment #3) Jerry, I have been talking with upstream since around september last year, and was in search of someone to review the packages since early this year :-) Maybe now it can be done, but at first I only need a few of them reviewed (5 actually, including CoinUtils), to enable Cbc in sagemath. After significant talk from time to time, upstream made a new, non official (yet), directory for distribution at: http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/ that unlike the tarballs at: http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/ have the dependencies stripped from the tarball, that is no need for the %{with_bundle} macro, and also have ThirdParty directories removed. > Issues, in no particular order: > 1. The documentation is quite large. This can be remedied by NOT listing > graphviz as a BR. Then dot won't generate the big class diagrams. I've > had to do this for several of my packages, as the interaction diagrams > grow > quite large. Is it ok to just split out a -doc package? Most users should get it only as build requires or requires. Either way, I did both, split -doc and remove graphviz from build requires. > 2. Version 2.9.0 came out 2 days ago. (I checked because of the "latest > version is packaged" question below.) > 3. The undefined non-weak symbols reported below indicate that the library > needs to be linked with -lz -lbz2. Add patch to correct the problem. > 4. The BRs list both atlas-devel, and also blas-devel and lapack-devel. > Since > atlas is a replacement for the standard blas and lapack, I'm confused. > Which one are you trying to use? Also, the final requires don't show > either, so are any of them really needed at all? They are not really required. But configure still checks for them. It should have been left from my first test packaging of coin-or, when it did build all bundled dependencies, as this is one of the first ones to be built. I just removed all blas* build requires. Update: - Update to latest upstream release. - Switch to the new upstream tarballs without bundled dependencies. - Split documentation in a new subpackage (#894585#3) - Correct undefined non weak symbols (#894585#3) - Removed unneeded atlas, blas, glpk and lapack build requires (#894585#3) Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
OK, that looks good. This package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: coin-or-CoinUtils Short Description: Coin-or Utilities Owners: pcpa Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc19
coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc18
coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
coin-or-CoinUtils-2.9.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.