[Bug 913152] Review Request: MUMPS - A MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver

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

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913152

--- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande <trpost@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Almost there, should be close to done now :-)
> 
> 1. Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>    Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
>    ---
>    You got it reversed :-)
>    lib*-%{version}.so should go in the main package, and
>    lib*.so should go in the -devel package, example:
>    $ file /usr/lib64/libcmumps.so
>    /usr/lib64/libcmumps.so: symbolic link to `/usr/lib64/libcmumps-4.10.0.so'
>    $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libcmumps.so /usr/lib64/libcmumps-4.10.0.so
>    MUMPS-4.10.0-6.fc19.x86_64
>    MUMPS-devel-4.10.0-6.fc19.x86_64
> 
> 
> 2. Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
>    Note: Documentation size is 1669120 bytes in 6 files.
>    ---
>    I suggest not installing the .ps file, and then up to you if
>    creating or not a -doc package just for the .pdf. Since this
>    packge is expected to be a dependency of others, probably a
>    good idea do create a -doc package.
>    The ChangeLog file should go to the -devel package also.
> 
> 3. SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
>    Note: Patch0 (examples-mpilibs.patch) Patch1 (shared-pord.patch) Source1
>    (Makefile.par.inc) Patch2 (shared-mumps.patch)
>    ---
>    You may rename the sources to prefix it with MUMPS-, but it is
>    optional (just to reduce the number the warnings)
> 
> ============================
> Extra:
> 1. Add openssh-clients to BuildRequires, optionally making all the
>    %check conditional. Google'ing a bit I found the reason it would
>    fail by missing ssh or rsh:
>    http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2010/07/13503.php
> 
> 2. About the undefined-non-weak-symbol and unused-direct-shlib-dependency,
>    unless someone else has some comments, I believe it is ok, as the
>    package is functional. And it appears bogus, for example. it tells:
>    W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsmumps-4.10.0.so
> libmpi_f77.so.1
>    and then
>    W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libdmumps-4.10.0.so mpi_reduce_
>    but the mpi_reduce_ symbol is defined in libmpi_f77.so.1
>    The warning should be either because of the mpi libraries not in
>    LD_LIBRARY_PATH at rpmlint runtime, or maybe (unlikely) because of the
>    reversed links in the main package and libraries in the -devel one
>    as explained above.
> 
> ----
> 

Fixed. :)

Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/MUMPS/MUMPS-4.10.0-7.fc18.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ywxWzihhCY&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



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