[Bug 555162] Review Request: blast - Berkeley Lazy Abstraction Software Verification Tool

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555162

--- Comment #1 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-01-17 23:23:14 EST ---
One thing that jumps out at me is the "ocaml-caddie" package it creates (CAml
cuDD InterfacE).  It isn't named as a subpackage but is a completely separate
package.  This "ocaml-caddie" package certainly looks useful, but is this
really the right source for it?  Or is there a better upstream we should be
trying to use instead?
(I presume this is different from MLCUDDIDL, which is also an OCaml binding to
cuDD.)

This draft package includes "vampyre", which is NOT open source software.
This needs to be removed.  Its license says:
"Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute
 this software for research purposes only is hereby granted..."
Note that it's ONLY permitted for use for "research purposes"... you
are NOT allowed to use it for anything useful.  Thus,
it's not okay for Fedora to include it.  Vampyre needs to
be stripped out of this package.  I hope it can still be used
without it; if vampyre is 100% required,  then this package is done for.


Instead of:
 sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc/Makefile
 sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc2/Makefile
 sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/spec/Makefile
Why not (so we can see it's all the same change):
sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc/Makefile \
                     blast/psrc2/Makefile blast/spec/Makefile


Should the smp_mflags limitation be a "FIXME"?  It's more just a fact of life.

Looking over the installed files, I see all sorts of issues:
%{_bindir}/htmlize
%{_bindir}/mfilter
%{_bindir}/pblast
%{_bindir}/smt_solver
%{_bindir}/smtlibServer
%{_bindir}/spec
%{_bindir}/vampyre
%{_includedir}/blast


As I noted above, it installs "vampyre", which isn't allowed. Also,
a number of these other names are probably too generic to be
acceptable.  I bet there are a dozen "htmlize" programs.
Other bad names include mfilter, smt_solver, smtlibServer, spec.
Also, one weird thing... the package is named "blast", but the
program isn't named "blast"?  That's okay, but odd.

It did build on a 32-bit x86.

I can't easily use koji, since this depends on a package (csisat) not in the
Fedora repository.

I ran rpmlint using rpmlint blast.spec ../RPMS/i586/blast-2.5-1.fc11.i586.rpm 
../RPMS/i586/ocaml-caddie-* ../SRPMS/blast-2.5-1.fc11.src.rpm
and got 2 warning messages:
blast.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/blast/assert.h
ocaml-caddie-devel.i586: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The first one is probably okay, and we can ignore the warning.
The second one doesn't look good.  ocaml-caddie should have SOME docs, yes?

Thoughts?

-- 
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.