[Bug 501958] Review Request: scotch - Graph, mesh and hypergraph partitioning library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501958


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-05 19:31:55 EDT ---
This builds fine, though I'm still seeing the 0775 permissions thing.  You
didn't respond to tell me if you see that as well, so I did a koji build and it
doesn't happen on the buildsys, so I'll just assume some problem with mock on
my end.  Ignoring those permission complaints, I get:
  scotch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  scotch-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation               
These aren't problems.

  scotch.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/scotch.conf
  scotch-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These are necessary because of the way the libraries from this package are
placed into a subdirectory.  Honestly, looking at the contents of
/usr/lib64/scotch, I have to wonder why you'd want to go through that extra
effort.  There's nothing there that's going to conflict, and you're not doing
any fancy versioning of the directory that you'd need for parallel installation
or anything like that, so why not just put the libraries in %_libdir and
dispense with the ld.so.conf.d magic?

The source file downloaded from the Source0 URL is not the same as the source
file in the tarball.  The download is quite a bit smaller, and seems to contain
older files.

CeCILL-C is not GPL-compatible, but mpich2 is MIT and zlib is very liberally
licensed so I see no linking issues.

I note that the -static subpackage has no dependency on the -devel package.  I
don't believe this is mandatory, but most -static packages seem to do it and it
does make sense from the perspective of someone who wants to use it (yum
install scotch-static would bring in what you need to actually use those
libraries).

X source files do not match upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
? rpmlint has a couple of complaints which may go away.
* final provides and requires:
  scotch-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   libptscotch.so.0()(64bit)       
   libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)    
   libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)  
   libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit)  
   libscotch.so.0()(64bit)            
   libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)         
   libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)     
   libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit)       
   scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12              
   scotch(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12      
  =                                
   /sbin/ldconfig                     
   libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)          
   libmpich.so.1.1()(64bit)           
   libptscotch.so.0()(64bit)          
   libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)       
   libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)   
   libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit)  
   libscotch.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)

  scotch-devel-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   scotch-devel = 5.1.6-3.fc12
   scotch-devel(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12
  =
   libptscotch.so.0()(64bit)
   libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)
   libptscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)
   libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotch.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotcherrexit.so.0()(64bit)
   libscotchmetis.so.0()(64bit)
   scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12

  scotch-static-5.1.6-3.fc12.x86_64.rpm
   scotch-static = 5.1.6-3.fc12
   scotch-static(x86-64) = 5.1.6-3.fc12
  =
   scotch = 5.1.6-3.fc12

* %check is present; no test suite upstream.  I've no way to test this.  The 
  executables don't crash, but I have no date to feed them.
* shared libraries are installed:
  ldconfig called properly
  unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* no pkgconfig files.
* static libraries present in a separate -static package.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.