[Bug 466655] Review Request: libfplll - LLL-reduces euclidian lattices

[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=466655





--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-17 17:14:43 EDT ---
Indeed, this builds fine.  I get one rpmlint complaint:
  libfplll-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is indeed correct but also not an issue.

Normally I'd complain about obscure acronyms which aren't explained in the
package description, but I'm not sure that "Lenstra-Lenstra-Lovascz" is any
clearer than "LLL".  I will point out that the use of "oblivious" in the
description doesn't really make any sense because a "succession of variants"
can't have conscious awareness in the first place.  I'm not sure what they
really mean.  Maybe "immaterial".  But that's just nitpicking.

There's a test suite; you should call it (with "make check" in a %check
section).  I'm not sure how to interpret the results but a quick read of the
code indicates that calls to llldiff should produce no output if there are no
problems, and that seems to be the case in my tests.

The "generate" command is incredibly generic; I don't think this package can be
approved with a binary of that name.  fplll-generate would make sense.

The header files install directory into /usr/include with very generic names
(/usr/include/defs.h, for example).  These will need to be either renamed or
moved into a subdirectory.

* source files match upstream:
   04f630a4d939f4fc1c721c57c921a2e940efb8b315adca6f994192220326aeb7  
   libfplll-3.0.9.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.
* 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:
  libfplll-3.0.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libfplll.so.0()(64bit)
   libfplll = 3.0.9-1.fc10
   libfplll(x86-64) = 3.0.9-1.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libfplll.so.0()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
   libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
   libmpfr.so.1()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)

  libfplll-devel-3.0.9-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libfplll-devel = 3.0.9-1.fc10
   libfplll-devel(x86-64) = 3.0.9-1.fc10
  =
   libfplll = 3.0.9-1.fc10
   libfplll.so.0()(64bit)

X %check is not present, but should be.
* shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly.
* unversioned .so files are in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
X generically named files.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig).
* 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.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.