[Bug 1398400] New: Review Request: superlu_dist - Solution of large, sparse, nonsymmetric systems of linear equations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Bug ID: 1398400 Summary: Review Request: superlu_dist - Solution of large, sparse, nonsymmetric systems of linear equations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d.love@liverpool.ac.uk QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/superlu_dist.spec SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/superlu_dist-5.1.2-2.el6.src.rpm Description: SuperLU is a general purpose library for the direct solution of large, sparse, nonsymmetric systems of linear equations. The library is written in C and is callable from either C or Fortran program. It uses MPI, OpenMP and CUDA to support various forms of parallelism. It supports both real and complex datatypes, both single and double precision, and 64-bit integer indexing. The library routines performs an LU decomposition with partial pivoting and triangular system solves through forward and back substitution. The LU factorization routines can handle non-square matrices but the triangular solves are performed only for square matrices. The matrix columns may be preordered (before factorization) either through library or user supplied routines. This preordering for sparsity is completely separate from the factorization. Working precision iterative refinement subroutines are provided for improved backward stability. Routines are also provided to equilibrate the system, estimate the condition number, calculate the relative backward error, and estimate error bounds for the refined solutions.
This version uses MPI and OpenMP.
Fedora Account System Username: loveshack
copr builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/package/superlu_dis...
This supplements the existing serial and threaded packaged versions of SuperLU.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |505154 (FE-SCITECH)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |anto.trande@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |anto.trande@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- compiler/linker flags are not honored.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #2 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- Is there anything else that needs fixing in a new version?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- After a quick revision, no.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- "Package names should be in lower case and use dashes in preference to underscores." [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuideline...]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #5 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
"Package names should be in lower case and use dashes in preference to underscores." [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging: NamingGuidelines]
According to that, it should be SuperLUDIST, following SuperLUMT, but I find the capitalization a nuisance. It doesn't say you must convert underscores to dashes, and other packages don't.
What's actually required to pass review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- "lower case ... dashes". Any reason why not superlu-dist?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- I think we can choose SuperLUDIST definitively, because of SuperLU and SuperLUMT already in Fedora.
Otherwise, we would be forced to renaming SuperLU and SuperLUMT in order to have a logical naming of the packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Then I think superlu_dist is better. Capitalized names like SuperLU are quite annoying to type.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Unlike 'underscore' issue, capitalized names are not prohibited (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuideline...), so i don't understand what's the problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- There's no problem, just a question: what is the best name for the package.
Unlike 'underscore' issue, capitalized names are not prohibited
Neither is prohibited. Both are just guidelines stated as "SHOULD". This means that it's OK to deviate, if there's a good reason.
OK, so on second thought, consistency is more important. So "SuperLUDIST" seems best, unless you want to rename the order two packages to "superlu-mt" and "superlu". Renaming would of course be best in the long run.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nonamedotc@gmail.com
--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10)
There's no problem, just a question: what is the best name for the package.
Unlike 'underscore' issue, capitalized names are not prohibited
Neither is prohibited. Both are just guidelines stated as "SHOULD". This means that it's OK to deviate, if there's a good reason.
OK, so on second thought, consistency is more important. So "SuperLUDIST" seems best, unless you want to rename the order two packages to "superlu-mt" and "superlu". Renaming would of course be best in the long run.
@Mukundan @Björn
Are you interested to renaming 'SuperLU' to 'superlu'? I should do the same thing for SuperLUMT (-> 'superlu-mt').
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc@gmail.com --- SuperLU (and all other supernodal packages) are closer to upstream if they are named as they are now.
Having said that, I am perfectly fine with renaming SuperLU to superlu. However, I would rather go with what everyone else wants to do so that we keep all the related packages consistent.
So, if Bjorn and Antonio are also fine, then I will also file a rename review request, If not, lets make this package SuperLUDIST.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #13 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10)
Neither is prohibited. Both are just guidelines stated as "SHOULD".
Right, which is presumably why fedora-review doesn't object. I assume the guideline is against introducing underscores to separate name parts, not to expurgate them.
This means that it's OK to deviate, if there's a good reason.
The good reason is to spell the name correctly, regardless of capitalization. If I want to search the archive for what the author calls SuperLU_MT, I'd expect "repoquery --search superlu_mt" to find it, and it doesn't. Likewise for DL_POLY, which I lower-cased but spelt correctly (as a veteran of DL).
OK, so on second thought, consistency is more important. So "SuperLUDIST" seems best, unless you want to rename the order two packages to "superlu-mt" and "superlu". Renaming would of course be best in the long run.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #13)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10)
Neither is prohibited. Both are just guidelines stated as "SHOULD".
Right, which is presumably why fedora-review doesn't object. I assume the guideline is against introducing underscores to separate name parts, not to expurgate them.
I interpret the guideline as also replacing underscores in the name with dashes. The issue is that many projects are inconsistent (for example the tarball name contains an underscore, but the web page a dash, etc.), so it's often impossible to know a priori if the package will have a dash or an underscore, and the guideline to always use dashes emerged to allow people not to guess.
The good reason is to spell the name correctly, regardless of capitalization. If I want to search the archive for what the author calls SuperLU_MT, I'd expect "repoquery --search superlu_mt" to find it, and it doesn't. Likewise for DL_POLY, which I lower-cased but spelt correctly (as a veteran of DL).
Yes, that's a good point. But we already have SuperLUMT.
Aside from the name: find -name *.[oa] | xargs rm 2>/dev/null || true → find -name *.[oa] -delete
make → %make_build (to get parallelized build)
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
%_licensedir is now defined pretty much everywhere, so this is probably unneeded.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com ---
SuperLU (and all other supernodal packages) are closer to upstream if they are named as they are now.
I agree. Also, 'repoquery' (or 'dnf') looks be not sensible to capitalized names:
repoquery --search SuperLU or repoquery --search superlu
give same result.
Ultimately, i vote for SuperLU, SuperLUMT, and SuperLUDIST (like upstream). Waiting for Björn opinion.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #16 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #14)
I interpret the guideline as also replacing underscores in the name with dashes.
Well, it's useless if it's not clear. I will try to get that sorted out.
The issue is that many projects are inconsistent (for example the tarball name contains an underscore, but the web page a dash, etc.), so it's often impossible to know a priori if the package will have a dash or an underscore, and the guideline to always use dashes emerged to allow people not to guess.
If you can use the proper name of something (modulo case), you don't have to guess.
Aside from the name: find -name *.[oa] | xargs rm 2>/dev/null || true → find -name *.[oa] -delete
Is using POSIX really a problem?
make → %make_build (to get parallelized build)
Then you can't just (un)comment the smp flags according to whether it works or not.
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
%_licensedir is now defined pretty much everywhere, so this is probably unneeded.
That's specifically necessary on the RHEL system I use with SCLs installed.
$ rpm -q epel-rpm-macros epel-rpm-macros-6-15.noarch $ rpmbuild --showrc|grep licensedir $
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #17 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15)
SuperLU (and all other supernodal packages) are closer to upstream if they are named as they are now.
I agree. Also, 'repoquery' (or 'dnf') looks be not sensible to capitalized names:
Case-insensitive search seems sensible and useful to me.
repoquery --search SuperLU or repoquery --search superlu
give same result.
Ultimately, i vote for SuperLU, SuperLUMT, and SuperLUDIST (like upstream). Waiting for Björn opinion.
The author calls it SuperLU_DIST, and I'm Dave Love, not DaveLove.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #18 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- I changed the compilation and linkage flags and kept the name, as at least some -devel people think the guidelines mean what they say about upstream names.
SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/superlu_dist-5.1.2-3.el6.src.rpm SPEC URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/superlu_dist.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #19 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- No objection from me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Use parallel Make if possible. Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 276 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1398400-superlu_dist/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]: 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [?]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 superlu_dist-openmpi , superlu_dist-openmpi-devel , superlu_dist-doc , superlu_dist-mpich , superlu_dist-mpich-devel , superlu_dist-debuginfo [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: superlu_dist-openmpi-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-openmpi-devel-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-doc-5.1.2-3.fc26.noarch.rpm superlu_dist-mpich-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-mpich-devel-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-debuginfo-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-5.1.2-3.fc26.src.rpm superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered -> reordered, p reordered, prerecorded superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering -> reordering, p reordering, preordaining superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equilibrate -> equilateral superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered -> reordered, p reordered, prerecorded superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering -> reordering, p reordering, preordaining superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equilibrate -> equilateral superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered -> reordered, p reordered, prerecorded superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering -> reordering, p reordering, preordaining superlu_dist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equilibrate -> equilateral 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 34 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: superlu_dist-debuginfo-5.1.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered -> reordered, p reordered, prerecorded superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering -> reordering, p reordering, preordaining superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equilibrate -> equilateral superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libptscotch.so.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libptscotcherr.so.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libscotch.so.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-mpich.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib superlu_dist-openmpi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib superlu_dist-mpich-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nonsymmetric -> non symmetric, non-symmetric, unsymmetrical superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordered -> reordered, p reordered, prerecorded superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preordering -> reordering, p reordering, preordaining superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US equilibrate -> equilateral superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libptscotch.so.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libptscotcherr.so.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libscotch.so.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-openmpi.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libsuperlu_dist.so.1.0.0 superlu_dist-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser superlu_dist-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superlu -> superglue, Superglue, superuser 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 36 warnings.
Requires -------- superlu_dist-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libmetis.so.0()(64bit) libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libptscotch.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libscotch.so.0()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) mpich(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
superlu_dist-openmpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) openmpi-devel(x86-64) superlu_dist-openmpi(x86-64)
superlu_dist-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
superlu_dist-mpich-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) mpich-devel(x86-64) superlu_dist-mpich(x86-64)
superlu_dist-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libmetis.so.0()(64bit) libmpi.so.20()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libptscotch.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libptscotcherr.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libptscotchparmetis.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libscotch.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) openmpi(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
superlu_dist-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- superlu_dist-mpich: libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) superlu_dist-mpich superlu_dist-mpich(x86-64)
superlu_dist-openmpi-devel: superlu_dist-openmpi-devel superlu_dist-openmpi-devel(x86-64)
superlu_dist-debuginfo: superlu_dist-debuginfo superlu_dist-debuginfo(x86-64)
superlu_dist-mpich-devel: superlu_dist-mpich-devel superlu_dist-mpich-devel(x86-64)
superlu_dist-openmpi: libsuperlu_dist.so.1()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) superlu_dist-openmpi superlu_dist-openmpi(x86-64)
superlu_dist-doc: superlu_dist-doc
Source checksums ---------------- http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~xiaoye/SuperLU/superlu_dist_5.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 91032b9a4d23bd14272607b8fc9b6cbb936c385902ca4d3d0ba2d1014fbcd99d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91032b9a4d23bd14272607b8fc9b6cbb936c385902ca4d3d0ba2d1014fbcd99d
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1398400 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #21 from Dave Love d.love@liverpool.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #20)
Use parallel Make if possible.
I should have added a comment that it fails.
Thanks, but I'm largely cut off from Fedora infrastructure after the flag day, so I don't know when I'll be able to proceed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/superlu_dist
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dave.love@manchester.ac.uk Flags| |needinfo?(dave.love@manches | |ter.ac.uk)
--- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- No builds yet?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dave.love@manches | |ter.ac.uk) |
--- Comment #24 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #23)
No builds yet?
Sorry, I've been cut off from Fedora builds until recently. I'll try to find time to revisit this soon. With other disruption, I had forgotten that it was outstanding, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dave.love@manches | |ter.ac.uk)
--- Comment #25 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Let me help you. My request for admin right is pending.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4b1f4593ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e2b96ce208
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cbc1eb72fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5a231b6b8b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-ba85d2bc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5a231b6b8b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e2b96ce208
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cbc1eb72fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4b1f4593ad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-ba85d2bc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(dave.love@manches | |ter.ac.uk) |
--- Comment #36 from Dave Love dave.love@manchester.ac.uk --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #25)
Let me help you. My request for admin right is pending.
Sorry, I missed this, and I don't think I got any notification of the request -- I'm baffled by the notification system. Anyhow I've approved it, but I've already managed to build the packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-05-04 09:29:29
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- superlu_dist-5.1.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla