[Bug 903380] Review Request: libint2 - A library for efficient evaluation of electron repulsion integrals

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=903380

--- Comment #9 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola at iki.fi> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.
>      Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
> [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>      Note: %defattr present but not needed
> [ ]: Buildroot is not present
>      Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
> [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>      Note: %clean present but not required

I'm also targetting EPEL5 so these are necessary.

> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>      libint2-devel

Added the %{?_isa}.

> [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
>      Note: Documentation size is 911360 bytes in 2 files.

I'm following the same rationale as in libint. This is a highly specialized
package, and is only going to be installed by developers, for which the
documentation is very much important, since the library is pretty much useless
without it (requires many pages worth of initializing procedures).

(Note that the compiled library itself is 201MB!)


(In reply to comment #8)
> > libint2.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libint2-2.0.0/LICENSE
> The LICENSE file includes the following fsf address:
> > Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
> The correct address is:
> 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301, USA
> Please have upstream update their LICENSE file.

I'll ask upstream to perform the update, and possibly add a proper COPYING file
as well.


> If you plan to also package for EPEL5, I recommend you only keep the above in
> the EPEL5 branch, and remove them from EPEL6 and Fedora branches.

There's no sense in multiplying the workload without any added benefit. The
obsoleted stuff doesn't hurt anything.

> > [!]: Uses parallel make.
> fedora-review identifies this as a fail. That's a flase positive. I can see 8
> cc1plus processes spawn during the build.
> > make -C doc
> Can the documentation use parallel make?

Not really - it's about running LaTeX on a single file, and doxygen.

> > %{_libdir}/libint*.so.*
> Please consider versioning here:
> %{_libdir}/libint*.so.1*
> This makes it very easy to catch soname version bumps, and is much safer than
> undiscriminately accepting any library the build spits out.

Well, in the case of libint sonames don't have much use anyway, since in my
experience one can break the ABI compatibility just by changing the configure
flags.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3HPMjfHBeG&a=cc_unsubscribe