[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517



--- Comment #57 from Milan Bouchet-Valat <nalimilan@xxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #56)
> Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet? ->
> "fedora-review -b 1040517"
I wish I was able to do it myself, but I'm hitting a bug in fedora-review. I'm
only able to run it on prebuilt packages from Koji, and Julia does not build
there yet because of dSFMT. Sigh. If you can paste the raw output of
fedora-review somewhere, I can fix the warnings.

Thanks for doing the manual review!

> After a brief look at the spec file, I think there are a couple of places
> that would benefit from trying to perform a self-review of your own spec
> file. It will help you understanding the package more deeply.
> 
> 
> > %files
> > %{_libdir}/julia/*.so
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
> 
> > %{_datadir}/julia/base/
> 
> Same here.
> 
> 
> > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/julia/juliarc.jl
> 
> Same here.
Indeed. Fixed using %dir.

> > %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> Very doubtful. Typically, ldconfig is only run for _runtime_ library
> packages, whereas -devel packages only contain symlinks needed at
> build-time, and that's not ldconfig's area.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
This was because there's only /usr/lib/libjulia.so, and no
/usr/lib/libjulia.so.X.Y, since this library is currently unstable: therefore I
included it in -devel. But it makes more sense to move it to the julia package
itself (until it gets versioned).

> > %files doc
> > %docdir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
> > %{_datadir}/julia/doc
> 
> Unowned directories here, too.  Using %docdir here is not convenient, since
> you add the contents of a single directory only.
> 
>   %dir %{_datadir}/julia/doc
>   %doc %{_datadir}/julia/doc/*
Fixed.

> > %files devel
> > %{_bindir}/julia-debug
> > %{_libdir}/libjulia.so
> 
> Please double-check whether this is a runtime library that belongs into the
> base %name package instead:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
As I said above, moved to the base julia package.

> > %package doc
> > Summary:        Julia documentation and code examples
> > Group:          Development/Languages
> 
> "Group: Documentation" if you really want to set the Group tag.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag
Done.

> > Requires:       fftw >= 3.3.2
> > Requires:       gmp
> > Requires:       lapack
> > Requires:       mpfr
> > Requires:       openblas
> > Requires:       openlibm >= 0.4
> > Requires:       openspecfun >= 0.4
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
There's a comment about this slightly above:
# Dependencies loaded at run time by Julia code
# and thus not detected by find-requires


I've put the new package online:
Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/julia.spec
SRPM URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/julia-0.3.0-2.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]