[Bug 464424] Review Request: GROMACS - a Molecular Dynamics package

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464424





--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx>  2008-09-28 19:21:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> > Prelink is needed since I have to remove executable stacks from libraries.
> 
> That's a major hack. Does it even work after you do that? It's better to fix
> the sources instead. I'd prefer it if you identified the problem at its source
> instead of papering over it. It's probably in some assembly code that doesn't
> define the .note.GNU-stack section. There are a lot of patches on the web to
> remove executable stack requirements for various software (xvidcore, for
> example). You might want to consult those.

Yes, gromacs works after the execstack hack.

Anyway, I changed the spec file to use the -Wa,--noexecstack option instead of
using execstack, and filed a bug upstream. My hunch is that the .note.GNU-stack
hasn't been added since the developers have had trouble putting in comments
that work with GNU, Intel and Microsoft assembler.

(There are a couple of hundred assembler core files that would need to be
patched, better let upstream handle it.)

> No, you must keep the build process in %build. If you need several different
> configurations, you can create subdirs in builddir and run configure with
> different options and make there (it's called out-of-tree builds if you're not
> familiar).

Right, thanks for the tip. Fixed.

> You are supposed to paste the rpmlint output in bugzilla, not just link to it.

OK, here it is: 

gromacs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs.x86_64: E: no-binary
gromacs-common.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gromacs/template/Makefile.x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu_double
gromacs-common.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gromacs/template/Makefile.x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
gromacs-common.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/gromacs/template/template.c
gromacs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-double.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-double.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgmx_d.so
gromacs-double.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgmxana_d.so
gromacs-double.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libmd_d.so
gromacs-mpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-double.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-double.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi_d.so
gromacs-mpi-double.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi_d.so
gromacs-mpi-single.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-mpi-single.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libmd_mpi.so
gromacs-mpi-single.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgmx_mpi.so
gromacs-single.x86_64: W: no-documentation
gromacs-single.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libmd.so
gromacs-single.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libgmxana.so
gromacs-single.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgmx.so
SPECS/gromacs.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line
1)
9 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 19 warnings.


> Why are the .so files needed in the main package?

Well, they *could* be separated to their own packages. However there are four
sets of libraries, which go hand in hand with the executables: single
precision, double precision, single precision w/ MPI and double precision w/
MPI. The MPI packages contain 1 binary and 2 libraries (.so and .la w/ 4
symlinks), and the "normal" packages 88 binaries and 3 libraries (.so and .la
w/ 6 symlinks).

If the libraries are separated, we'd end up with four more packages which would
be installed as requirements for the correspondent binaries in any case, which
I don't find very logical. 


> Please post the current specfile (with the fixes you mentioned already applied
> and with release increased by one). Also, please mention these fixes in the
> changelog of the package.

Done. Current release is 2.

http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/gromacs-4.0-2.rc2.el5.src.rpm

-- 
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]