https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893 --- Comment #23 from Dave Love <d.love@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #20) > > > > * Shouldn't the doc be installed? > > I believe nobody reads the docs installed on the system nowadays. > I could dispute that. Packaged docs have advantages: they work offline, they > don't get out of sync with the package, they are still there if the upstream > goes away. Right. As a user of the package, I don't want to have to install the doc separately. Examples are particularly valuable. > But they are not mandatory, so if you don't want to package them > that's OK. It is a "should" item in the guidelines, and trivial to do, at least in this case. It's unfortunate if Fedora loses documentation, and I'd definitely rather have it than full regression tests. > When running the build, a number of errors appear like this: > Checking uspp...[warn] Epoll ADD(4) on fd 1 failed. Old events were 0; read > change was 0 (none); write change was 1 (add): Operation not permitted I don't see that, but there are several "discrepancies" listed when it's run here under RHEL6 on sandybridge. I doubt the numerical differences are important, but some differences in iteration counts look surprising. However, I'd meant to say that I don't think it's worthwhile to run complete sets of regression tests in package builds, especially when they take so long and require the extra data. One or two sanity checks from the examples directory seem enough. (The increased build resources are relevant to installers if you need to rebuild for a different MPI, as I do.) I think the MPI sub-packages should have proper Summary contents, particularly as the main one may not be installed; "%{name} - openmpi version" isn't useful, e.g. in the output of "rpm -qa". Probably there should be a guideline for that. -- 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