[Bug 249034] Review Request: sundials - nonlinear differential/algebraic solvers from LLNL

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: sundials - nonlinear differential/algebraic solvers from LLNL


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249034





------- Additional Comments From debarshi.ray at gmail.com  2007-07-30 23:18 EST -------
+---------------+
| FORMAL REVIEW  |
+---------------+

- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.

Fine. Warning can be ignored since separate -doc subpackage is being provided.

[rishi at ginger i386]$ rpmlint sundials-2.3.0-2.fc8.i386.rpm 
[rishi at ginger i386]$ rpmlint sundials-debuginfo-2.3.0-2.fc8.i386.rpm 
[rishi at ginger i386]$ rpmlint sundials-devel-2.3.0-2.fc8.i386.rpm 
W: sundials-devel no-documentation
[rishi at ginger i386]$ rpmlint sundials-doc-2.3.0-2.fc8.i386.rpm 
[rishi at ginger i386]$ 

[rishi at ginger SRPMS]$ rpmlint sundials-2.3.0-2.fc8.src.rpm 
[rishi at ginger SRPMS]$

- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

Fine.

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.

Fine.

- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

You need not install the INSTALL_NOTES as documentation. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b

- MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.

Fine.

- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

Fine.

- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

Fine.

- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

<pedantic>
A few sentences in the '%changelog' stanza lack full stops.
</pedantic>

- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable
to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not
the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).

Fine.

- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the  Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

Fine.

- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.

Fine. Koji info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82674

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 

Not applicable. Koji info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82674

- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

Why is 'BuildRequires: automake' necessary? I don't find any use of 'automake'
during the build process.

- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

Fine.

- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.

You need to invoke /sbin/ldconfig for the -devel subpackage too, since it also
includes shared libraries.

- MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.

Is the '#  --with-mpi-root=/usr/share/openmpi' line in '%build' stanza
necessary? If you _must_ keep it, then replace /usr/share with %{_datadir}.

John, just have look at the above comments. I will go through the remaining
issues (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines), and let you
know further.

Mamoru, feel free to let me know if I have slipped up somewhere. Since this is
my first review, your help might be useful.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.