https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288643
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Please link to the raw spec file in the 'Spec URL' field. Otherwise fedora-review and other automated tools (or even running wget to get the file) don't work.
The License field needs further correction (sorry, what I said above wasn't fully correct). The "and Public Domain" part only applies to the examples. If the examples were included e.g. in the -devel subpackage, than that subpackage would have a different license from the main subpackage. But I see that the examples are not packaged at all. So...
1. You should split out a -doc subpackage. The documentation is pretty big, and there's no need to install it everywhere.
2. You should include the examples in -doc. They will be pretty useful for users of the library. They don't have to be compiled.
3. Finally have License:Boost at the top of the spec file, and then License:Boost and Public Domain in the -doc subpackage.
4. Python packages include the examples, under the Public Domain license, so they should have License:Boost and Public Domain. You should also include LICENSE_FOR_EXAMPLE_PROGRAMS.txt in the %license field for those packages.
I hope I fixed everything, but probably I misunterstood you and used too complicated way to remove dotfiles from documentation. Is it possible to do it easier? I did not find out how to use %exclude in this case.
What you did is fairly straightforward. You can simplify it a bit by doing the removal directly in %build using relative path: rm -r docs/python/.{buildinfo,doctrees}
Using %exclude would look like %files devel ... %exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.buildinfo %exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.doctrees but I think that removing them in %install is better (simpler and less error prone) and removing them in %build is even better.
In the build I see the following: -- Found BLAS library -- Looking for cblas_ddot -- Looking for cblas_ddot - not found -- BLAS library does not have cblas symbols, so dlib will not use BLAS or LAPACK ***************************************************************************** *** No BLAS library found so using dlib's built in BLAS. However, if you *** *** install an optimized BLAS such as OpenBLAS or the Intel MKL your code *** *** will run faster. On Ubuntu you can install OpenBLAS by executing: *** *** sudo apt-get install libopenblas-dev liblapack-dev *** *** Or you can easily install OpenBLAS from source by downloading the *** *** source tar file from http://www.openblas.net, extracting it, and *** *** running: *** *** make; sudo make install *** ***************************************************************************** Most likely the test is wrong. It is possible that you might need add more '-lxxx' compilation options.
rpmlint: dlib.src:90: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 90, tab: line 1)
Looks good otherwise.
--
Regarding sponsorship: I'd be happy to sponsor you. Can you do two or three reviews of packages from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html and post the links here?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor