[Bug 555160] Review Request: picosat - A SAT solver

Sun Jan 17 23:58:01 UTC 2010

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=555160

--- Comment #2 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-01-17 18:57:57 EST ---
Here's my review, using
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Basically:
 - Permisssions appear to wrong on some systems (per comment 1)
 - No docs; want to make some?
 - The license file is packaged into the "-libs" subpackage.  Shouldn't it be
in the base package?
 - You don't *need* to "Requires: gzip"; go ahead and remove it.

    *  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.[1]

ISSUE: it appears there are permission issues on some systems per comment 1. 
Also, no docs.

I built on a 32-bit Fedora 11 system:
  rpmlint picosat.spec ../RPMS/i586/picosat-*
../SRPMS/picosat-913-1.fc11.src.rpm 
It only gave this:
picosat.i586: W: no-documentation
picosat-devel.i586: W: no-documentation

Unlike comment 1, I didn't get an the rpmlint error on /usr/bin/picosat.
Instead, I get the perfectly-fine -rwxr-xr-x for /usr/bin/picosat.  Still, if
the permissions aren't right on some architectures, then perhaps it'd be best
to use "install" as given in comment 1 to make sure that the permissions are
correct everywhere. (Or use cp -p; chmod ... for the same effect).

There are no docs at all in the original package.  Yuk.

(Soapbox: What *is* this with SAT solver authors?  Are they just incapable of
writing a short README or man page that explains the input and output format,
command line parameters, and an example?!?  I appreciate that they've released
the code, but some minimal documentation would help the non-mind-readers among
us!)

Docs aren't required.  Still, having NO documentation is pretty sad.
I wrote a doc page for minisat2, which is available here:
   http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/minisat-user-guide.html
Maybe that could be used to create basic docs for picosat, pulling in its
results from "picosat -h"?
Either an html file or a man page?

Docs aren't strictly *required*.
but *using* these tools without ANY documentation is, well, challenging.

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

OK.  It has several subpackages.  Many other Fedora packages for libraries use
the "-libs" extension in the same, so it seems consistent.

    * MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .

OK

    * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

Looks fine.  For example, it patches the makefile so that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS apply.

    * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .

OK. (MIT)

    * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]

OK.  Compared with:  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

    * 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.[4]

POSSIBLE ISSUE.  The license file is packaged into the "-libs" subpackage. 
Shouldn't it be in the base package?

    * MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]

OK

    * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]

OK

    * 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.

OK.
wget http://fmv.jku.at/picosat/picosat-913.tar.gz
md5sum picosat-913.tar.gz /home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/SOURCES/picosat-913.tar.gz
e658fa16cd71ff2cafae190a905a93c6  picosat-913.tar.gz
e658fa16cd71ff2cafae190a905a93c6 
/home/dwheeler/rpmbuild/SOURCES/picosat-913.tar.gz

    * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture. [7]

OK.  Tested on 32-bit x86.

    * 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 MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]

OK.
 koji build --scratch dist-f12 ./picosat-913-1.fc11.src.rpm 
 ...
 1928695 build (dist-f12, picosat-913-1.fc11.src.rpm): open
(ppc09.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed
   0 free  0 open  5 done  0 failed

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

OK.  The koji build (above) tested this.

    * MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

NA.  It doesn't have locales.

    * MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]

OK.  Only the "-libs" subpackage stores shared libraries, and the spec file
says:
 %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
The "-devel" subpackage stores a .so file, but it's just a symlink.

    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
OK

    * 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. [12]

NA

    * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]

OK.  It only creates a directory via %doc, which is handled by rpm.

    * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [14]

OK

    * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [15]

The permissions were fine in my test, however, see comment 1
for an issue on a 64-bit system.

    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]

OK

    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]

OK.  It uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and ${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} style for these two,
consistently.
(I suppose an argument could be made, because there are many %{...} uses,
but I think that it's fine.)

    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]

OK.

    * MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]

NA.  If only we had ANY documentation :-(.

    * MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [19]

OK

    * MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]

OK

    * MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]
NA

    * MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]
NA

    * MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [20]
OK

    * MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]
OK

    * MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
OK

    * MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[24]
NA

    * MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]
NA

    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
OK

    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK

FINALLY: Running it.

I installed & ran /usr/bin/picosat
and gave it this input:

c Here is a comment.
p cnf 5 3
1 -5 4 0
-1 5 3 4 0
-3 -4 0

It parsed it, and correctly declared that it was satisfiable.

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