[Bug 2253364] New: Review Request: spasm - Sparse gaussian elimination modulo a small prime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
Bug ID: 2253364 Summary: Review Request: spasm - Sparse gaussian elimination modulo a small prime 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/spasm/spasm.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-1.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: SpaSM is a software library devoted to sparse gaussian elimination modulo a small prime _p_.
This package is part of an effort to add the SoPlex and SCIP solvers to Fedora. The entire collection of packages is available in a COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/SCIP/. To do a mock build of this package, create ~/.config/mock/fedora-scip-x86_64.cfg with the following contents, then run "mock -r fedora-scip-x86_64" or "fedora-review -m fedora-scip-x86_64".
include('/etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg')
config_opts['root'] = 'fedora-rawhide-scip'
config_opts[f'{config_opts.package_manager}.conf'] += """
[scip] name=Copr repo for SCIP owned by jjames baseurl=https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jjames/SCIP/fedora-rawhide-$... type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=False gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jjames/SCIP/pubkey.gpg repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1 cost=10 """
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/cbouilla | |/spasm
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6729883 (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=2253364
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
Currently fails to build in Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112028716
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6926717 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2253364
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- It looks like there were problems with the givaro/fflas-ffpack/linbox stack right then. A scratch build today succeeds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112561379
so let's try this again.
[fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6971824 (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=2253364
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #6 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License". 179 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2253364-spasm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4460 bytes in 2 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libspasm , libspasm-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: spasm-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libspasm-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libspasm-devel-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm spasm-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm spasm-debugsource-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm spasm-1.2-1.fc40.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/tmppde1493c')] checks: 32, packages: 6
libspasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', 'Summary(en_US) gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') libspasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') libspasm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') spasm.src: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', 'Summary(en_US) gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') spasm.src: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') spasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', 'Summary(en_US) gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') spasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 0 warnings, 86 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 10.6 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: spasm-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmpcvzefy1h')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 60 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 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: 5
spasm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/spasm/bin/linbox_rank_gauss /lib64/libflexiblas.so.3 spasm.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/spasm/bin/linbox_rank_wm /lib64/libflexiblas.so.3 spasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', 'Summary(en_US) gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') spasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') libspasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', 'Summary(en_US) gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') libspasm.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') libspasm-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gaussian', '%description -l en_US gaussian -> Gaussian, gassing') 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings, 108 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 19.9 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cbouilla/spasm/archive/v1.2/spasm-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e01947316c177ac2084a4fe587e06f33377a196f711613e9d4a7b1b1c7cec000 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e01947316c177ac2084a4fe587e06f33377a196f711613e9d4a7b1b1c7cec000
Requires -------- spasm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): environment(modules) libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgivaro.so.9()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.5)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) liblinbox.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmetis.so.0()(64bit) libntl.so.44()(64bit) libspasm(x86-64) libspasm.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libspasm (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(GOMP_4.5)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libspasm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libspasm.so.0()(64bit)
spasm-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
spasm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- spasm: spasm spasm(x86-64)
libspasm: libspasm libspasm(x86-64) libspasm.so.0()(64bit)
libspasm-devel: libspasm-devel libspasm-devel(x86-64)
spasm-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) spasm-debuginfo spasm-debuginfo(x86-64)
spasm-debugsource: spasm-debugsource spasm-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/fedora/2253364-spasm/upstream- unpacked/Source0/spasm-1.2/configure.ac:22
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253364 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell, Python, PHP, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Patches seem reasonable, but are not to the upstream repository https://github.com/cbouilla/spasm b) May be good to also update obsolete m4 macros. c) Builds on all specified architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113172980 d) Approved as above are not blocking, but would be good to resolve before importing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review, Benson. For (a), that was a mistake in the patch comments. I pointed to my fork instead of the main repository. All of the patches have either been committed to the main spasm repository, or the files they patch have been removed. I have changed the patch URLs to correct values.
For (b), I have added a patch to update obsolete m4 macro usage. The changes are: - Remove AC_PROG_CC_C99 from configure.ac - Remove AC_PROG_LIBTOOL from configure.ac (which already has LT_INIT!) - Change AC_HELP_STRING to AS_HELP_STRING - Change AC_TRY_RUN(...) to AC_RUN_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE([...])])
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spasm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253364
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |spasm-1.2-1.fc40 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-02-09 22:52:30
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- This package has been built in Rawhide.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com