Bug 908089 - Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver
Review Request: ipopt - Large-scale optimisation solver
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 894604
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks: ascend 913152
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-02-05 15:39 EST by Antonio Trande
Modified: 2013-10-19 10:42 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-02 12:18:29 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Antonio Trande 2013-02-05 15:39:22 EST
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ipopt/ipopt.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/ipopt/ipopt-3.10.3-0.fc18.src.rpm

Description: IPOPT (Interior Point Optimizer, pronounced 'I-P-Opt') is an open source software package for large-scale nonlinear optimization.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter
Comment 1 Antonio Trande 2013-02-05 17:15:24 EST
Koji build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4931187
Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2013-02-05 17:40:45 EST
Déjà-vu? Bug 894604 (Review Request: coin-or-Ipopt - Interior Point OPTimizer)

An opportunity for team-work.
Comment 3 Paulo Andrade 2013-02-05 19:24:24 EST
I have the full list of my coin-or- review requests
at #894610; it is not the full list of coin-or projects
but matches the contents of the "CoinAll" tarball.

coin-or-Ipopt is one of the few without dependencies,
but I did not add ThirdParty contents. This should
be carefully reviewed, and still, should not bundle
mumps and metis, not without fpc approval; should
check what is already in fedora, and if missing,
make separate review requests.

I am happily willing to help on whatever I can
to have it packaged in fedora.
Comment 4 Antonio Trande 2013-02-06 11:58:18 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> I have the full list of my coin-or- review requests
> at #894610; it is not the full list of coin-or projects
> but matches the contents of the "CoinAll" tarball.
> 
> coin-or-Ipopt is one of the few without dependencies,
> but I did not add ThirdParty contents. This should
> be carefully reviewed, and still, should not bundle
> mumps and metis, not without fpc approval; should
> check what is already in fedora, and if missing,
> make separate review requests.
> 
> I am happily willing to help on whatever I can
> to have it packaged in fedora.

Hi Paulo.

Only difference between 'ipopt' and 'coin-or-Ipopt' is ThirdParty content; but ThirdParty seems necessary to use Ascend (Bug 908088) with Ipopt (http://ascend4.org/IPOPT#Building_IPOPT).

> This should be carefully reviewed, and still, should not bundle mumps and >metis, not without fpc approval

So should I open a ticket on https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/report/3 ?
Comment 5 Paulo Andrade 2013-02-06 14:27:17 EST
I did not actually test it, but it is ipopt is supposed to
work with the solver as an external module; need to check
how it handles it.

A quick googling shows that mumps and metis are not
in fedora due to uncertainty of licenses:

mumps (actually, should be doable, the review
submitter just did leave it to anybody else
willing to work on it, and it is already accepted
in debian/ubuntu):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750

metis (another issue, should talk with upstream IMO,
and get a clean statement about it, also check if
available in other distros):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715314

I absolutely do not suggested opening a ticket in fpc
(it should be a last resort and usually only when
needing a different version from a system package),
but to continue on the mumps and metis review requests
for now. Mumps should be the easiest, and after that,
I ipopt would need to have something like a
buildrequires on mumps-devel.
Comment 6 Antonio Trande 2013-02-06 15:57:04 EST
(In reply to comment #5)
> I did not actually test it, but it is ipopt is supposed to
> work with the solver as an external module; need to check
> how it handles it.
> 
> A quick googling shows that mumps and metis are not
> in fedora due to uncertainty of licenses:
> 
> mumps (actually, should be doable, the review
> submitter just did leave it to anybody else
> willing to work on it, and it is already accepted
> in debian/ubuntu):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750

Sincerely I didn't understand which is the problem with MUMPS. It is public domain (http://mumps.enseeiht.fr/index.php?page=credits) and 'public domain' is accepted by Fedora (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main).
As I can also read by Tom's comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750#c10 


> metis (another issue, should talk with upstream IMO,
> and get a clean statement about it, also check if
> available in other distros):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715314
> 

This seems to me more complicate but I read:

https://projects.coin-or.org/BuildTools/browser/ThirdParty/Metis/trunk/INSTALL.Metis

and 

http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/metis/metis/faq?q=metis/metis/faq#distribute
Comment 7 Paulo Andrade 2013-02-07 08:07:01 EST
As I said MUMPS should be easy to get packaged, try
talking to  Thomas Moulard as commented in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566750#c12

I belive Metis could be added to rpmfusion. The
restriction of only being used in Free Software should
not affect Fedora, but still need to get a proper
authorization to redistribute it and add it to %doc,
But is not entirely free because users cannot modify
it (patching for packaging may be an issue). The
requirement to distribute the proper documentation
with the package is ok. But IANAL...

I suggest checking if Ascend will work with just
Ipopt/MUMPS.
Comment 8 Antonio Trande 2013-02-07 13:33:37 EST
Quoting Tom Callaway's mail:

>It is safe to treat Mumps as being in the Public Domain. OK for Fedora.
>This (Metis) is non-free. Not acceptable for Fedora.

So I need to understand if Thomas Moulard wants re-open his review or accept my co-maintenance proposal since I'm not sponsored.

Also I have asked info to upstream maintainer about the use of ascend without Metis.

I'm waiting for their replies.
Comment 9 Thomas Moulard 2013-02-12 22:02:35 EST
Hello everyone, Thomas Moulard here.
I am not currently a Fedora user so I prefer not to co-maintain the package.
Feel free to take over the MUMPS packaging attempt.
Comment 10 Antonio Trande 2013-03-02 12:18:29 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 894604 ***
Comment 11 Antonio Trande 2013-03-02 12:20:51 EST
(In reply to comment #9)
> Hello everyone, Thomas Moulard here.
> I am not currently a Fedora user so I prefer not to co-maintain the package.
> Feel free to take over the MUMPS packaging attempt.

Thank you Thomas.
MUMPS package is now under revision in Bug913152.

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