[Bug 470173] Review Request: m4ri - Linear Algebra over F_2
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 8 00:14:46 UTC 2008
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=470173
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks| |182235
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2008-11-07 19:14:44 EDT ---
I'm seeing several issues with this package.
The COPYING file contains v2 of the GPL, but the code itself does not specify a
version. Their web site indicates GPLv2+, but I do not know if the web site is
a sufficient statement of intent. According to the licensing FAQ, the web site
isn't consulted about this. Blocking FE-Legal for a ruling.
The "testsuite" directory would seem to include a test suite. Is it possible
to run it at build time? If so, it needs to be run unless there's a compelling
reason not to do so.
A shared library is installed but ldconfig is not called. In addition, this
package seems to have a rather odd library versioning convention. The usual
method is to have the library version after the ".so" but this package has it
before. I'm afraid I don't understand why it would be doing this differently
than almost all other libraries.
The static library is not permitted in the -devel package.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
This is the "static libraries and shared libraries" case.
rpmlint says only:
m4ri-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is fine.
* source files match upstream:
6e30b50b74c72ceca431461d471e38f682d7a6ad1c2d07db28806fff1d3e30e8
m4ri-20081028.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
m4ri-20081028-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm
libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so()(64bit)
m4ri = 20081028-2.fc10
m4ri(x86-64) = 20081028-2.fc10
=
m4ri-devel-20081028-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm
m4ri-static = 20081028-2.fc10
m4ri-devel = 20081028-2.fc10
m4ri-devel(x86-64) = 20081028-2.fc10
=
libm4ri-0.0.20081029.so()(64bit)
m4ri = 20081028-2.fc10
X %check is not present but a test suite seems to exist.
X shared libraries are installed but ldconfig is not called.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
X static libraries are in the -devel package.
* no libtool .la files.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list