Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.6.0-3.fc19.src.rpm Description: The objective of Optimization Services (OS) is to provide a set of standards for representing optimization instances, results, solver options, and communication between clients and solvers in a distributed environment using Web Services. This COIN-OR project provides source code for libraries and executable programs that implement OS standards. See the Home Site http://www.optimizationservices.org/ for more information. 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-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.6.0-4.fc19.src.rpm Actually does not run make check, as noted in the spec, because it will core dump due to missing libhsl.so, and is the same issue as https://projects.coin-or.org/Ipopt/ticket/75
The package can be built now in rawhide. Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.9.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
Build fails because mp-devel is not required.
Thanks Antonio. It was my fault to test on a mock chroot that already had it installed. Update: - Add missing bzip2, mp and zlib devel build requires - Remove non needed doxygen build requires Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.9.2-2.fc23.src.rpm
- Upstream MD5sum check error - Compiler involve files with other license: GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- OS-2.9.2/v2.0/OSParseosrl.tab.cpp OS-2.9.2/v2.0/OSParseosrl.tab.hpp GPL (v3 or later) ----------------- OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosil.tab.cpp OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosil.tab.hpp OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosol.tab.cpp OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosol.tab.hpp OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosrl.tab.cpp OS-2.9.2/src/OSParsers/OSParseosrl.tab.hpp This is a Mixed Source Licensing Scenario http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario - Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/sagitter/894609-coin-or- OS/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 251 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894609-coin-or-OS/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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-OS-2.9.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-devel-2.9.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-2.9.2-2.fc23.src.rpm coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 exit.5 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSAmplClient coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSSolverService coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation coin-or-OS.src: W: file-size-mismatch OS-2.9.2.tgz = 15630486, http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/OS/OS-2.9.2.tgz = 15630385 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- coin-or-OS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libBcp.so.1()(64bit) libBonCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libCbc.so.3()(64bit) libCbcSolver.so.3()(64bit) libCgl.so.1()(64bit) libClp.so.1()(64bit) libClpSolver.so.1()(64bit) libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) libCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOS.so.6()(64bit) libOsi.so.1()(64bit) libOsiClp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiSym.so.3()(64bit) libOsiVol.so.1()(64bit) libSym.so.3()(64bit) libVol.so.1()(64bit) libasl.so.1()(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libbonmin.so.4()(64bit) libbonminampl.so.4()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdmumps-5.0.0.so()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libipopt.so.1()(64bit) libipoptamplinterface.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmp.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-OS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-OS(x86-64) pkgconfig(bcp) pkgconfig(bonmin) pkgconfig(cbc) pkgconfig(coinutils) pkgconfig(couenne) pkgconfig(cppad) pkgconfig(ipopt) pkgconfig(osi-clp) pkgconfig(osi-dylp) pkgconfig(osi-sym) pkgconfig(osi-vol) Provides -------- coin-or-OS: coin-or-OS coin-or-OS(x86-64) libOS.so.6()(64bit) coin-or-OS-devel: coin-or-OS-devel coin-or-OS-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(os) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/OS/OS-2.9.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e11fc1d85ed680d4802611aa2c9916383e7d64094f76a287d91ed2209cbf153a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fed62fedb756f81b61481c82b32122ca1add2826f79700849fe1e56e27fc3089 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894609 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
I think it would not required to add "GPLv2+ and GPLv3+" if the files were generated at build time, when yacc (BSD) could also be used. But instead, already parsed, by bison, files are being distributed in the tarball. I will ask upstream about it.
It may be required to wait a bit until newer mp (a build requires) hits mirrors, as I rebuilt it earlier today to correct broken dependencies. Update: - Update to latest upstream release - Regenerate parsers (#894609#c7) Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.9.3-1.fc23.src.rpm
Build failed: Error: nothing provides libgecodeint.so.40 needed by mp-1.3.0-5.fc23.i686.
Please try again, I just sent you an email about it possibly failing, for reference, here is the text :) ---8<--- If you have trouble, that is, if mirrors were not updated since yesterday, please download the newer mp, that fixes broken dependencies. For example: $ mkdir extra $ cd extra # from http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=645864 $ wget https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/mp/1.3.0/6.fc23/x86_64/mp-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm $ wget https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/mp/1.3.0/6.fc23/x86_64/mp-devel-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm $ cd .. $ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894609 --local-repo $PWD/extra ---8<---
- Please, fix URL tag. - LICENSE is correctly tagged as %license - There is code licensed with GPL license and involved in package building. License tag should indicate GPL code too. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario - Why documentation is not packaged? - Please, fix 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings. See rpmlint (installed packages) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 %license. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 251 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894609-coin-or-OS/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [?]: 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. [!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-OS-2.9.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-devel-2.9.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-2.9.3-1.fc23.src.rpm coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 exit.5 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSAmplClient coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSSolverService coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation coin-or-OS.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: coin-or-OS-debuginfo-2.9.3-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/OS-2.9.3/src/OSModelInterfaces/OSnl2OS.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/OS-2.9.3/src/OSModelInterfaces/OSnl2OS.cpp coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libBcp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libmp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libipoptamplinterface.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libbonminampl.so.4 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libSym.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libCgl.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libVol.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libDylp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libClpSolver.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libClp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libdmumps-5.0.0.so coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/liblapack.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libblas.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libdl.so.2 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libbz2.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libz.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 exit.5 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSAmplClient coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSSolverService coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings. Requires -------- coin-or-OS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libBcp.so.1()(64bit) libBonCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libCbc.so.3()(64bit) libCbcSolver.so.3()(64bit) libCgl.so.1()(64bit) libClp.so.1()(64bit) libClpSolver.so.1()(64bit) libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) libCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOS.so.6()(64bit) libOsi.so.1()(64bit) libOsiClp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiSym.so.3()(64bit) libOsiVol.so.1()(64bit) libSym.so.3()(64bit) libVol.so.1()(64bit) libasl.so.1()(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libbonmin.so.4()(64bit) libbonminampl.so.4()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdmumps-5.0.0.so()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libipopt.so.1()(64bit) libipoptamplinterface.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmp.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-OS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-OS(x86-64) libOS.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig(bcp) pkgconfig(bonmin) pkgconfig(cbc) pkgconfig(coinutils) pkgconfig(couenne) pkgconfig(cppad) pkgconfig(ipopt) pkgconfig(osi-clp) pkgconfig(osi-dylp) pkgconfig(osi-sym) pkgconfig(osi-vol) Provides -------- coin-or-OS: coin-or-OS coin-or-OS(x86-64) libOS.so.6()(64bit) coin-or-OS-devel: coin-or-OS-devel coin-or-OS-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(os) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/OS/OS-2.9.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22916feb137ed70d94372bb68548d7287e4531aaac137dd72ad5483f43b1a78f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22916feb137ed70d94372bb68548d7287e4531aaac137dd72ad5483f43b1a78f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894609 --local-repo extra 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /home/sagitter/extra/mp-devel-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/extra/mp-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11) Thanks for the review! > - Please, fix URL tag. It is correct, try opening http://http://projects.coin-or.org/OS but it has some issue with the ssl certificate. In firefox, there will be an exclamation mark icon right of the link, with the tooltip: "This website does not supply identity information." > - LICENSE is correctly tagged as %license > > - There is code licensed with GPL license and involved > in package building. License tag should indicate GPL code too. This was the reason it took some time for the next review. It bundles preprocessed bison and flex files, but it now regenerate the parsers. See http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/bison.html#Conditions The files are also regenerated at build time, so the "exceptions" ally: ---8<--- OS-2.9.3/src/OSParsers/OSParseosrl.tab.cpp: /* A Bison parser, made by GNU Bison 2.4.1. */ ... /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this special exception, which will cause the skeleton and the resulting Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public License without this special exception. This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in version 2.2 of Bison. */ ... ---8<--- > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > > - Why documentation is not packaged? My bad :) it was broken at some point, but fixed now! > - Please, fix 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings. > See rpmlint (installed packages) I am unsure about these, because it would mean changing RPM_LD_FLAGS, by adding -Wl,--as-needed to LDFLAGS. Maybe these are one of the cases rpmlint is being too much verbose? Anyway, I changed it avoid overlinking. Update: - Build documentation (#894609#c11) - Do not overlink generated library (#894609#c11) - Update file list when asl is disabled Spec URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS.spec SRPM URL: http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coin-or/coin-or-OS-2.9.3-2.fc23.src.rpm
- unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings persist. Also there are various 'undefined symbol' related to linkages of libipopt and libBonCouenne libraries i think, even if libOS.so.6.9.2 seems correctly linked to them. - 'LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license' is a false positive. I don't know why comes out. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 %license. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 56135680 bytes in 3328 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 251 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/894609-coin-or-OS/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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- OS-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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 56883200 bytes in /usr/share coin- or-OS-2.9.3-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm:56883200 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-OS-2.9.3-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-devel-2.9.3-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-doc-2.9.3-2.fc23.noarch.rpm coin-or-OS-2.9.3-2.fc23.src.rpm coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 exit.5 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSAmplClient coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSSolverService coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation coin-or-OS-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: coin-or-OS-debuginfo-2.9.3-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/OS-2.9.3/src/OSModelInterfaces/OSnl2OS.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/OS-2.9.3/src/OSModelInterfaces/OSnl2OS.cpp coin-or-OS-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libBcp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libmp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libipoptamplinterface.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libbonminampl.so.4 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libSym.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libCgl.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libVol.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libDylp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libClpSolver.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libClp.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libdmumps-5.0.0.so coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/liblapack.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libblas.so.3 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libdl.so.2 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libbz2.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 /lib64/libz.so.1 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOS.so.6.9.2 exit.5 coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSAmplClient coin-or-OS.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary OSSolverService coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS <urlopen error [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590)> coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coin-or-OS-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 26 warnings. Requires -------- coin-or-OS-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): coin-or-OS coin-or-OS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libBcp.so.1()(64bit) libBonCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libCbc.so.3()(64bit) libCbcSolver.so.3()(64bit) libCgl.so.1()(64bit) libClp.so.1()(64bit) libClpSolver.so.1()(64bit) libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) libCouenne.so.1()(64bit) libDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOS.so.6()(64bit) libOsi.so.1()(64bit) libOsiClp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiDylp.so.1()(64bit) libOsiSym.so.3()(64bit) libOsiVol.so.1()(64bit) libSym.so.3()(64bit) libVol.so.1()(64bit) libasl.so.1()(64bit) libblas.so.3()(64bit) libbonmin.so.4()(64bit) libbonminampl.so.4()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdmumps-5.0.0.so()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libipopt.so.1()(64bit) libipoptamplinterface.so.1()(64bit) liblapack.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmp.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-OS-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-OS(x86-64) libOS.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig(bcp) pkgconfig(bonmin) pkgconfig(cbc) pkgconfig(coinutils) pkgconfig(couenne) pkgconfig(cppad) pkgconfig(ipopt) pkgconfig(osi-clp) pkgconfig(osi-dylp) pkgconfig(osi-sym) pkgconfig(osi-vol) Provides -------- coin-or-OS-doc: coin-or-OS-doc coin-or-OS: coin-or-OS coin-or-OS(x86-64) libOS.so.6()(64bit) coin-or-OS-devel: coin-or-OS-devel coin-or-OS-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(os) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.coin-or.org/download/pkgsource/OS/OS-2.9.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22916feb137ed70d94372bb68548d7287e4531aaac137dd72ad5483f43b1a78f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22916feb137ed70d94372bb68548d7287e4531aaac137dd72ad5483f43b1a78f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 894609 --local-repo extra 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: /home/sagitter/extra/mp-devel-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/extra/mp-1.3.0-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > - unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings persist. I was experimenting with several different options. To fix this, it would be required to do a complete audit to know what can be dlopen'ed and patch pkg-config files to not add unused libraries to its --libs output. I experimented with some libtool patches as well, but without patching pkg-config files it will not work very well. This would not be trivial, and would need upstream to correct it; as it is now it is not wrong, just that it links to, what the direct dependency libraries link to. > Also there are various 'undefined symbol' related to linkages of libipopt > and libBonCouenne libraries i think, even if libOS.so.6.9.2 seems correctly > linked to them. I did not see any "undefined symbol" log. Please post an example. The library is linked with -no-undefined, so, it may have been some false positive. > - 'LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license' is a false positive. > I don't know why comes out. I could not find a way to make %license work in rhel5 BTW, the way it is supposed to fix by redefining %license to %doc does not work there; it expands the License tag... Overall, I believe at first it would be better to remove the LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,--as-needed" attempt, and report upstream about overlinking, what is not really an error, and the "fixes" for it most times cause unexpected side effects, and are not applied in upstream packages.
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #14) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13) > > - unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings persist. > > I was experimenting with several different options. To > fix this, it would be required to do a complete audit to > know what can be dlopen'ed and patch pkg-config files to > not add unused libraries to its --libs output. > I experimented with some libtool patches as well, but > without patching pkg-config files it will not work very > well. > This would not be trivial, and would need upstream to > correct it; as it is now it is not wrong, just that it > links to, what the direct dependency libraries link to. > Okay. > > Also there are various 'undefined symbol' related to linkages of libipopt > > and libBonCouenne libraries i think, even if libOS.so.6.9.2 seems correctly > > linked to them. > > I did not see any "undefined symbol" log. Please post > an example. The library is linked with -no-undefined, > so, it may have been some false positive. It's my mistake probably. I have consulted 'ldd' on libraries for F23 but in Fedora 22. :P > > > - 'LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license' is a false positive. > > I don't know why comes out. > > I could not find a way to make %license work in rhel5 > BTW, the way it is supposed to fix by redefining %license > to %doc does not work there; it expands the License tag... > > > Overall, I believe at first it would be better to remove > the LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,--as-needed" attempt, and > report upstream about overlinking, what is not really > an error, and the "fixes" for it most times cause > unexpected side effects, and are not applied in upstream > packages. ----- Package approved.
Thanks for the review Antonio!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: coin-or-OS Short Description: Optimization Services Upstream URL: http://projects.coin-or.org/OS Owners: pcpa Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc21,coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc21,coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc21,coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc21,coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc21,coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc21,coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc21,coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc21,coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc21,coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc21,coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc21,coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc21,coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc21,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc21,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc21,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc21,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc21,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc21,coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc21,coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc21,coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc21,coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc21,coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc21,coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc21,coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc21,coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc21,coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc21,coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc21,coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc21,coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc21,coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc21,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc21,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc21,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc21,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc21,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc21,coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc21
coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22
coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22,coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22,coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22,coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22,coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22,coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22,coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22,coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22,coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22,coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22,coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22,coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22,coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22,coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22,coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22,coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22,coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22,coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22,coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22
Package coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22, coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22, coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22, coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22, coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22, coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22, coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22, coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22, coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22, coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22, coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22, coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22, coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22, coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22, coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22, coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22, coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22, coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22, coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22, coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22 coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22 coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22 coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22 coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22 coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22 coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22 coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22 coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22 coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22 coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22 coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22 coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22 coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22 coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22 coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22 coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22 coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22 coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22 coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-10605/coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22,coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22,coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22,coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22,coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22,coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22,coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22,coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22,coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22,coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22,coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22,coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22,coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22,coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22,coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22,coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22,coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22,coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc21, coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc21, coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc21, coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc21, coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc21, coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc21, coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc21, coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc21, coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc21, coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc21, coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc21, coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc21, coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc21, coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc21, coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc21, coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc21, coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc21, coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc21, coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc21, coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
coin-or-Sample-1.2.10-3.fc22, coin-or-CoinUtils-2.10.8-3.fc22, coin-or-Osi-0.107.4-3.fc22, coin-or-Cgl-0.59.5-4.fc22, coin-or-Alps-1.5.3-4.fc22, coin-or-Bcps-0.94.2-3.fc22, coin-or-Vol-1.5.2-3.fc22, coin-or-Bcp-1.3.8-7.fc22, coin-or-Blis-0.94.2-2.fc22, coin-or-Cbc-2.9.5-3.fc22, coin-or-DyLP-1.10.1-3.fc22, coin-or-CoinMP-1.7.6-7.fc22, coin-or-Dip-0.91.2-4.fc22, coin-or-FlopC++-1.1.7-7.fc22, coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.3-3.fc22, coin-or-Clp-1.16.6-5.fc22, coin-or-Bonmin-1.8.1-6.fc22, coin-or-Couenne-0.5.2-6.fc22, coin-or-SYMPHONY-5.6.8-4.fc22, coin-or-OS-2.9.3-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.