[Bug 2268197] New: Review Request: sassy - Preprocessor for symmetry detection in sparse graphs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
Bug ID: 2268197 Summary: Review Request: sassy - Preprocessor for symmetry detection in sparse graphs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy-0-1.20230610git9847fa1.fc41.src.... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The sassy preprocessor is designed to shrink large, sparse graphs. Before giving a graph to an off-the-shelf symmetry detection solver (such as bliss, dejavu, nauty, saucy, or Traces), the graph is instead first handed to the preprocessor. The preprocessor shrinks the graph, in turn hopefully speeding up the subsequent solver.
Some technicalities apply, though: a hook for symmetries must be given to sassy (a sassy_hook), and symmetries of the reduced graph must be translated back to the original graph. The preprocessor can do the reverse translation automatically, by providing a special hook that is in turn given to the backend solver.
The preprocessor comes in the form of a C++ header-only library and uses some features of C++17.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7113152 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2268197-sassy/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10842 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sassy-devel-0-1.20230610git9847fa1.fc41.noarch.rpm sassy-0-1.20230610git9847fa1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpjfa0vxwy')] checks: 32, packages: 2
sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's") sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay') sassy.src: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty') sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's") sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay') sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Preprocessor', "Summary(en_US) Preprocessor -> Processor, Predecessor, Process's") sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dejavu', '%description -l en_US dejavu -> deejay') sassy-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('nauty', '%description -l en_US nauty -> nasty, natty, naughty') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/markusa4/sassy/archive/9847fa18ba894ea2ca8dc8319fca9b4283... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e50770acd9ccf31477949338070eadd2c0341e08582fcbd8f6a94123c23c74c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e50770acd9ccf31477949338070eadd2c0341e08582fcbd8f6a94123c23c74c
Requires -------- sassy-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- sassy-devel: sassy-devel sassy-static
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268197 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, fonts, Java, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
comments: a) Perhaps a test could be run with libnauty? The README contains an example program.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- The code in README is missing quite a lot to be a reasonable test. I had intended to do this anyway, which is why this package has BuildRequires that aren't actually used. I did write a little test program, but immediately started getting C++ library assertion failures. I have filed an issue upstream: https://github.com/markusa4/sassy/issues/3.
It is interesting that the COPR test builds (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FLINT3/) did not show any assertion failures.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Upstream has fixed the assertion failures. New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/sassy/sassy-0-1.20240311gitb628596.fc41.src....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2021195 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2021195&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 7113152 to 7140810
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7140810 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268197
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Last Closed| |2024-03-14 15:29:59
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I am going to withdraw this review request for two reasons: - The sassy code in the scip package has been altered slightly from upstream - Upstream says that sassy is in bugfix-only mode, and users should migrate to dejavu, a sassy replacement
I think it would be better to allow scip to bundle sassy for now, and work with scip upstream on migrating to dejavu. Once that happens, I will submit a dejavu review request.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com