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=497622 --- Comment #26 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-07-23 07:48:47 EDT --- apbs has support for: --with-mpich=PATH toplevel MPICH directory --with-mpich2=PATH toplevel MPICH2 directory --with-lam=PATH toplevel LAM-MPI directory --with-openmpi enable OpenMPI compilation so I suggest you add these to the package in the future. I have suggested an MPI packaging draft and an environment modules packaging draft, which would standardize the way MPI stuff is packaged. - Add BR: arpack-devel and --with-arpack to enable support for ARPACK. - Add BR: python-devel and --with-python to enable support for Python. - Remove maloc in the %prep phase after %setup to make sure it isn't used. - There are tests in examples/, run them in %check with %check for dir in examples/*/; do make -C $dir test done ** rpmlint output: apbs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libapbsmainroutines.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib64/libblas.so.3 apbs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. - Fix the unused-direct-shlib-dependency with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency - The -devel warning is expected. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - License of pmgZ, aqua and contrib/blas/mblasd.f is LGPLv2+, the rest is BSD. - License tag can be either "LGPLv2+ and BSD" or "LGPLv2+". MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK - I strongly suggest using %{_libdir}/libapbs.so.* %{_libdir}/libapbsmainroutines.so.* instead of %{_libdir}/*apbs.so.* %{_libdir}/*mainroutines.so.* and the same thing for the .so files in -devel. Also use %{_bindir}/apbs %{_bindir}/psize.py instead of %{_bindir}/* MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK - The current clean section is a bit silly, don't you think? rm -rf %{_builddir}/pmgZ rm -rf %{_builddir}/aqua rm -rf %{buildroot} Drop the two first lines. MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. NEEDSWORK - doc/programmer/html is 14 MB, and needs to go in a -doc subpackage. - examples/ is also 14 MB, but I don't think it should go in as it would need some work since the Makefiles are autogenerated and will need quite a lot of modification to work on an installed system. MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK - Included COPYING is BSD, LGPLv2+ COPYING is missing. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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