[Bug 498604] New: Review Request: apron - Abstract numerical domain library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: apron - Abstract numerical domain library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498604

           Summary: Review Request: apron - Abstract numerical domain
                    library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        ReportedBy: amdunn@xxxxxxxxx
         QAContact: extras-qa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                CC: notting@xxxxxxxxxx, fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://www.openproofs.org/packages/apron/apron.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.openproofs.org/packages/apron/apron-0.9.10_pr-1.fc10.src.rpm
Description:

APRON is a library of functions that allows the definition and
analysis of abstract numerical domains. APRON allows for different
types of numerical coefficients, both arbitrary precision
floating-point and rational, and different types of domain structures
like intervals and polyhedra. It allows for variable assignments and
constraints involving domains, and operations on these variables like
comparisons, existential quantification, substitution, meet and join.

I have done the following with respect to checking the packaging guidelines:

rpmlint produces:
apron.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libap_pkgrid.a
(... many more like this about static libs...)
ocaml-apron.i386: W: no-documentation
ocaml-apron.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/aprontop
ocaml-apron.i386: W: ocaml-mixed-executable /usr/bin/aprontop
ocaml-apron.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/ppltop
ocaml-apron.i386: W: ocaml-mixed-executable /usr/bin/ppltop
ocaml-apron.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/apronppltop
ocaml-apron.i386: W: ocaml-mixed-executable /usr/bin/apronppltop
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 49 warnings.

The first category of warnings are all about inclusion of libraries in the main
package. Ostensibly, the whole purpose of the apron package is these libraries,
so I was not sure of whether these belong in -devel.

Furthermore, these libraries are all static. Ideally, this would not be the
case, and I have mentioned to upstream aspects of their build procedure that
complicate packaging, and intend to continue to move them toward better
practices for packaging compatibility (eg: shared libraries, using standard
"configure, make, make install" process). Packaging already requires an
extensive set of changes to their makefiles to allow for configuration at
locations as specified by RPM parameters (which was included in the form of a
patch). If there are more things I should be doing in the short term for the
static libraries (eg: moving them all into -devel, creating a -static or a
virtual package -static via "provides") or if this static library creation is a
problem for packaging this overall, let me know.

The second set of warnings are a standard set of warnings for OCaml bytecode
binaries - I will tell upstream to try not to "-custom" for future releases
(which goes hand-in-hand with switching to shared libraries).

Note that the version name is due to the fact that this is a "pre-release" of
version 0.9.10 in the sense that 0.9.10 will soon be released and this was
taken from the SVN repository as "most of the way there". (It incorporates the
changes that are necessary for me to next package Frama-C.)

I also verified that the package builds in koji for dist-(f9 to f12) (eg:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1331353).

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]