Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.2-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: CHiPPS is the COIN-OR High-Performance Parallel Search Framework, a framework for implementing parallel algorithms based on tree search. The current CHiPPS architecture consists of three layers. The Abstract Library for Parallel Search (ALPS) is the base layer of a hierarchy consisting of implementations of various tree search algorithms for specific problem types. The Branch, Constrain, and Price Software (BiCePS) is a data management layer built on top of ALPS for implementing relaxation-based branch and bound algorithms. The BiCePS Linear Integer Solver (BLIS) is a concretization of the BiCePS layer for solving mixed-integer linear programs. ALPS, BiCePS, and BLIS are sub-repostories of the CHiPPS Subversion repository. 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: - Update to run make check (#894610#c4). Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.2-4.fc19.src.rpm
After quite some time and significant communication with upstream a new release that should fix all build issues on the tarball without bundled subprojects is available. Update: - Update to latest upstream release. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-1.fc21.src.rpm
Hi Paulo. The compilation fails. There should be a missing BR package (bzip2-devel?). "... /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lbz2 "
Hi Antonio. Sorry for the problem, now properly pre checked with fedora-review -r -n coin-or-Alps Update: - Add missing bzip2-devel and texlive-epstopdf build requires. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-2.fc21.src.rpm
- /usr/include/coin has still not any owner. See your comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586#c7 - I think, -doc sub-package can be independent by main package. - Please, fix the parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894589-coin-or-Alps/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/coin [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/coin [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in coin-or- Alps-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm coin-or-Alps-devel-1.4.10-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm coin-or-Alps-doc-1.4.10-2.fc21.noarch.rpm coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-2.fc21.src.rpm coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US concretization -> containerization, concretion, democratization coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repostories -> repositories, repertories, depositories coin-or-Alps-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation coin-or-Alps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US concretization -> containerization, concretion, democratization coin-or-Alps.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repostories -> repositories, repertories, depositories 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint coin-or-Alps coin-or-Alps-devel coin-or-Alps-doc coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US concretization -> containerization, concretion, democratization coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repostories -> repositories, repertories, depositories coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinError::printErrors_ coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::message(int, CoinMessages const&) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::CoinMessages(CoinMessages const&) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::CoinMessages(int) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::operator<<(double) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::operator=(CoinMessages const&) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::operator<<(CoinMessageMarker) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::operator<<(int) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::addMessage(int, CoinOneMessage const&) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::CoinMessageHandler() coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinOneMessage::CoinOneMessage(int, char, char const*) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::~CoinMessages() coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinOneMessage::~CoinOneMessage() coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::~CoinMessages() coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::operator<<(char const*) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessageHandler::setLogLevel(int) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 CoinMessages::CoinMessages(int) coin-or-Alps.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libAlps.so.3.4.10 /lib64/libm.so.6 coin-or-Alps-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- coin-or-Alps (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) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-Alps-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-Alps(x86-64) libAlps.so.3()(64bit) pkgconfig(coinutils) coin-or-Alps-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): coin-or-Alps Provides -------- coin-or-Alps: coin-or-Alps coin-or-Alps(x86-64) libAlps.so.3()(64bit) coin-or-Alps-devel: coin-or-Alps-devel coin-or-Alps-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(alps) coin-or-Alps-doc: coin-or-Alps-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/CHiPPS/Alps-1.4.10.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e24fff20baee05161d21289c1279bac7629212115121d204637d34a6331c4336 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e24fff20baee05161d21289c1279bac7629212115121d204637d34a6331c4336 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894589 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6) > - /usr/include/coin has still not any owner. > See your comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586#c7 It has an owner, the problem should be that the -devel requires does not explicitly require the owner of the directory, what should be fixed now. $ rpm -qf /usr/include/coin coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.9.7-3.fc21.x86_64 > - I think, -doc sub-package can be independent by main package. I am following an earlier advice from Jerry James, because doxygen documentation is (frequently) quite large, and is better not being owned by the main or devel packages on those cases. > - Please, fix the parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro Correct this case, and I also made a review in all of my packages, found and corrected, a few other cases I misspelled it. Update: - Correct misspelling of _smp_mflags. - Make devel subpackage require coin-or-CoinUtils-devel. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-3.fc21.src.rpm
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #7) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6) > > - /usr/include/coin has still not any owner. > > See your comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586#c7 > > It has an owner, the problem should be that the -devel > requires does not explicitly require the owner of the > directory, what should be fixed now. > > $ rpm -qf /usr/include/coin > coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.9.7-3.fc21.x86_64 coin-or-CoinUtils-devel owns that directory only in the package f21; I checked in Fedora 20 (2.9.0-3) instead. :P > > > - I think, -doc sub-package can be independent by main package. > > I am following an earlier advice from Jerry James, because > doxygen documentation is (frequently) quite large, and is better > not being owned by the main or devel packages on those cases. I agree; I mean -doc may even not require '%{name} = %{version}-%{release}'.
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8) > (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #7) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6) > > > - /usr/include/coin has still not any owner. > > > See your comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894586#c7 > > > > It has an owner, the problem should be that the -devel > > requires does not explicitly require the owner of the > > directory, what should be fixed now. > > > > $ rpm -qf /usr/include/coin > > coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.9.7-3.fc21.x86_64 > > coin-or-CoinUtils-devel owns that directory only in the package f21; I > checked in Fedora 20 (2.9.0-3) instead. :P I can make an update. Just that I am still half way in adding coin-or-* projects/packages to Fedora, so I did not bother earlier to update f20, sorry :-( > > > - I think, -doc sub-package can be independent by main package. > > > > I am following an earlier advice from Jerry James, because > > doxygen documentation is (frequently) quite large, and is better > > not being owned by the main or devel packages on those cases. > > I agree; I mean -doc may even not require '%{name} = %{version}-%{release}'. That is something to think about :-) but usually if someone wants documentation, also wants devel and runtime.
Package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: coin-or-Alps Short Description: COIN-OR High-Performance Parallel Search Framework Owners: pcpa Branches: f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
coin-or-Cgl-0.58.5-1.fc20,coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-3.fc20,coin-or-Bcps-0.93.12-2.fc20,coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-2.fc20,coin-or-Cbc-2.8.9-1.fc20,coin-or-DyLP-1.9.4-1.fc20,coin-or-Vol-1.4.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Cgl-0.58.5-1.fc20,coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-3.fc20,coin-or-Bcps-0.93.12-2.fc20,coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-2.fc20,coin-or-Cbc-2.8.9-1.fc20,coin-or-DyLP-1.9.4-1.fc20,coin-or-Vol-1.4.4-1.fc20
coin-or-Cgl-0.58.5-1.fc20, coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-3.fc20, coin-or-Bcps-0.93.12-2.fc20, coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-2.fc20, coin-or-Cbc-2.8.9-1.fc20, coin-or-DyLP-1.9.4-1.fc20, coin-or-Vol-1.4.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
coin-or-Cgl-0.58.5-1.fc20, coin-or-Alps-1.4.10-3.fc20, coin-or-Bcps-0.93.12-2.fc20, coin-or-Blis-0.93.11-2.fc20, coin-or-Cbc-2.8.9-1.fc20, coin-or-DyLP-1.9.4-1.fc20, coin-or-Vol-1.4.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.