Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: cryptominisat - SAT solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721174
Summary: Review Request: cryptominisat - SAT solver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganjerry@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cryptominisat/cryptominisat.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cryptominisat/cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc15.src.... Description: CryptoMiniSat is a SAT solver that aims to become a premiere SAT solver with all the features and speed of successful SAT solvers, such as MiniSat and PrecoSat. The long-term goals of CryptoMiniSat are to be an efficient sequential, parallel and distributed solver. There are solvers that are good at one or the other, e.g. ManySat (parallel) or PSolver (distributed), but we wish to excel at all.
This package is a prerequisite to upgrading stp to the latest version.
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=721174
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-11-15 14:35:42 EST --- I added some comments on the license situation and rebuilt for F16. New URLs: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cryptominisat/cryptominisat.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cryptominisat/cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16.src....
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=721174
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brendan.jones.it@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones.it@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-11-24 02:32:06 EST --- Hi Jerry, good stuff, this package is APPROVED on the proviso:
1) Use of %{name} macro in Source tags and URL
[-] N/A [+] Good [?] Attention [ ] Not performed
Required ========
[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines unless building for F12 and below or EPEL
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [+] License file must be included in %doc [+] The spec file must be written in American English [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source sha1sum 1070ff76edc06d2952d138bc32ab85580add5157 [+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [-] Proper use of ExcludeArch [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package [+] A package must own all directories that it creates directories under this [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr(...) no longer required [?] Each package must consistently use macros *** Use %{name} in Source and URL's
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [+] Header files must be in a -devel package [+] Static libraries must be in a -static package [+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[-] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel
Should Items ============ [-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to include it [-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the package spec if available [ ] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described cryptominisat --nosolprint --verbosity=1 AProVE09-12.cnf.gz OK [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts None in source although adequate documentation
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=721174
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-11-24 02:35:59 EST --- Sorry, one last thing:
fedora16:~$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. fedora16:~$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptominisat*.rpm cryptominisat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptominisat-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcryptominisat-2.9.1.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
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=721174
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-11-24 13:54:00 EST --- Thanks for the review, Brendan. I'll fix the places that should use %{name} on import. But I'm confused....
(In reply to comment #3)
Sorry, one last thing:
fedora16:~$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. fedora16:~$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cryptominisat*.rpm cryptominisat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation cryptominisat-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcryptominisat-2.9.1.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Is this just to satisfy the requirement to show the rpmlint output, or do you want me to do something about the library calling exit()?
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=721174
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-11-24 15:08:55 EST --- Sorry, Jerry, yes, just after some confirmation that the exit warning is OK.
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=721174
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-11-24 15:55:30 EST --- Well, no, it isn't really okay. I'll talk to upstream about it. Here's a catalog of places where exit() is called: - Solver/DimacsParser.cpp: if there is a parse error - Solver/ClauseAllocator.cpp: if a memory allocation fails - Solver/Solver.cpp: if it is asked to solve a problem that is too large - Solver/SolverMisc.cpp: if output files cannot be opened
All of those should really either throw exceptions or return error values, so the calling application can cope. What would you like me to do: import and work with upstream on the side, or wait for upstream to address this issue before importing?
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=721174
--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-11-24 16:38:10 EST --- This isn't a blocker Jerry but you should definitely take it upstream.
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=721174
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-12-07 12:49:48 EST --- OK, I've got a patch that I'm discussing with upstream. I'll tentatively add it to the package for now, and work with upstream on a permanent solution. Thanks for the review, Brendan!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cryptominisat Short Description: SAT solver Owners: jjames Branches: f16 InitialCC:
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=721174
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-07 12:53:18 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=721174
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
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=721174
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-07 20:54:26 EST --- cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16
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=721174
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-10 14:37:41 EST --- cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
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=721174
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-12-18 14:47:47
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-18 14:47:47 EST --- cryptominisat-2.9.1-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla