[Bug 227669] Review Request: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions

[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: ppl-0.9 - A modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669





------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it  2007-06-08 12:52 EST -------
>>> * rpmlint
>>>   The result of rpmlint for srpm, binary rpms and the installed
>>>   rpms is attached.
>>>
>>>   SUMMARY:
>>>   * Undefined non-weak symbols
>>>     - Two libraries have undefined non-weak symbols. 
> This means:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> -bash-3.2# ldd -r /usr/lib/libppl.so | sort
> undefined symbol: __gmpz_cmp    (/usr/lib/libppl.so)
> undefined symbol: __gmpz_mul    (/usr/lib/libppl.so)
> undefined symbol: __gmpn_popcount       (/usr/lib/libppl.so)
> undefined symbol: __gmpq_equal  (/usr/lib/libppl.so)
> <snip>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> For example, /usr/lib/libppl.so contains undefined non-weak
> symbols. For this library, perhaps linkage against /usr/lib/libgmp??.so
> is missing.

Thanks for the tip.  I will investigate this immediately.

>>>   * devel packge dependency on non-devel package
>>>     - Please explain
>>>       * why ppl-swiprolog requires ncurses-devel
>> Sorry, I do not understand this question.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> %package swiprolog
> Summary:	The SWI-Prolog interface of the Parma Polyhedra Library
> Group:		Development/Libraries
> BuildRequires:	pl >= 5.6.0, readline-devel
> Requires:	ppl = %{version}-%{release}, ppl-pwl = %{version}-%{release}, pl >=
> 5.6.0, readline-devel
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> So ppl-swiprolog has readline-devel for "Requires".

I see.  The problem was that above you wrote "ncurses-devel".

> As said
> above, normally non-devel package should not have dependency
> for -devel package without reasonable reason.

You asked me to add this as a workaround.  As a reminder,
`pl' should require `readline-devel', but it doesn't.
You asked me to file a bug for `pl' (which I did) and to
work around that problem (which I did by requiring
`readline-devel' myself).  Perhaps I misunderstood you.

>>>       * why ppl-utils requires glpk-devel
>> Because one of the utilities requires the GLPK library and, as far as I know,
>> there is only one package providing it, which is glpk-devel
> No. GLPK *library* is provided by glpk rpm and if you worry
> about library dependencies, then they are checked by rpmbuild
> automatically and so the explicit Requires for glpk-devel should be
> removed.

I am probably misunderstanding again.  Here I see only the packages

  glpk-devel-4.13-1.fc6
  glpk-utils-4.13-1.fc6

Where do you get the `glpk' package from?

>>>       Usually non-devel packages should not require devel related
>>>       packages.
>> I see.  What should I do then?
> If you have reasonable reasons, it can be ignored as exceptions.

My only reason is that I thought the `glpk' package did not exist.

>>> * About libppl_gprolog.so:
>> This one.  I thought I had fixed it by adding an -rpath option,
>> ppl_gprolog works, but now I get the following:
>>
>> + /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
> *******************************************************************************
>> ERROR   0001: file '/usr/lib64/ppl/libppl_swiprolog.so' contains a standard
>> rpath '/usr/lib64' in [/usr/lib64]
>> ERROR   0001: file '/usr/lib64/ppl/ppl_yap.so' contains a standard rpath
>> '/usr/lib64' in [/usr/lib64]
> <snip>
>> Net result: I am totally confused.  
> Your newest spec file uses --disable-rpath + adds ppl-0.9-makefiles.patch
> to add rpath on ppl_gprolog. Do you see this rpath problem
> on the newest spec file?

Yes.

>> Anyway, the sources with which I am working are:
> I will appreciate it if you also upload the srpm, thanks!

Because of the error above, the srpm is not generated.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.