https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #1 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
[rpmbuild@9e172a3d127e x86_64]$ rpmlint
elemental-openmpi-0.87-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
elemental-openmpi.x86_64: E: invalid-soname
/usr/lib64/libElSuiteSparse_openmpi.so libElSuiteSparse_openmpi.so
elemen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #2 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
[rpmbuild@9e172a3d127e SRPMS]$ rpmlint -v elemental-0.87-2.fc24.src.rpm
elemental.src: I: checking
elemental.src: I: checking-url http://libelemental.org (timeout 10 seconds)
elemental.src: I: check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
- Please, post direct links to 'raw' spec file and srpm.
- MPI compilers are not correct: you are using always '/usr/bin/c++'. You have
to set CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER:FILEPATH option at least inside MPI build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande ---
Take a look to proposed 'Build Modes':
http://libelemental.org/documentation/0.85/build.html#build-modes
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #5 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Thanks Antonio, I am adjusting the raw spec file, located in the repository
itself:
Spec URL:
https://github.com/elemental/Elemental/blob/master/redhat/elemental.spec
The copr builds happen every
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #5)
> Thanks Antonio, I am adjusting the raw spec file, located in the repository
> itself:
>
> Spec URL:
> https://github.com/elemental/Elemental/blob/mast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
> Do you really need to compile examples (bin/examples-*) and tests files
> (bin/tests-*)? If yes, those files should be packaged separately.
Test files looks to be just for testing. There is no need to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #8 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
can you explain how the ctest in %check would work for each of the two MPI
variants, and on the _installed_ binaries or on the compiled but not installed
ones?
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #8)
> can you explain how the ctest in %check would work for each of the two MPI
> variants, and on the _installed_ binaries or on the compiled but not
> inst
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #10 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Upstream reported that SimpleSVD had a bug, and was redundant so it was
removed. I am seeing that the tests are timing out/failing to find libEl.so.0
This is some sort of LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue. I am
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #11 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I believe the latest spec should work.
--
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
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #11)
> I believe the latest spec should work.
<
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --no-clean --shell 'rpm -q --list
elemental-openmpi| grep lib64'
Start: shel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #13 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
where do the so-versioned parts of libEl go? how about the the other shared
objects?
why do they belong in a devel package? What belongs in the elemental-openmpi
package? there would be nothing le
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #14 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Also, what do you mean by "this looks wrong." what is wrong?
--
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 c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #15 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I've edited the spec for:
1. use -Wl, --as-needed (should clean up unused-direct-shlib-dependency)
2. no postin/postun
3. arch versioning with %{?_isa}
I've issued a code fix for:
1. PMRRR callin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #13)
> where do the so-versioned parts of libEl go? how about the the other shared
> objects?
>
> why do they belong in a devel package? What belongs in th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #17 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Ok, I've gone ahead and separated out the devel package, and the rpms are
building
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #18 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
The current spec file:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elemental/Elemental/master/redhat/elemental.spec
builds green:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rhl/elemental/fedora-24-x86_6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande ---
- Code under external/suite_sparse is under LGPLv2+ license.
Other code/cmake files is MIT, Boost.
Please, update License tag and pack debian/copyright by using
%license tag.
- Don't need to execu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: Elemental - |Review Request: elemental -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #20 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
1) Are PPC64 builds a necessity?
Perhaps we can just file a bug for this and fix it later? Initial investigation
suggests its likely a toolchain issue. We need to run valgrind on it simulating
the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #21 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #20)
> 1) Are PPC64 builds a necessity?
>
> Perhaps we can just file a bug for this and fix it later? Initial
> investigation suggests its likely a toolcha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #22 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I've spent some quality time debugging Elementals failing PPC examples and
tests.
There is nothing obvious to point to in Elemental. There appears to be some
vanilla C++ code which works on every
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #23 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16676132
At least x86_64 builds green.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified abou
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #24 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16676472 Here is a build
where PPC is excluded.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #25 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I believe i've done what you've asked now. The output of rpmlint is below:
You wrote:
> - Don't need to execute ldconfig scripts.
However, this is generating rpmlint errors. I'm not sure if you wa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #26 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I've also reported the PPC failure to the GCC folks:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78636
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #25)
> I believe i've done what you've asked now. The output of rpmlint is below:
>
> You wrote:
> > - Don't need to execute ldconfig scripts.
>
> However,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #28 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elemental/Elemental/master/redhat/elemental-release.spec
srpm: https://rhl.fedorapeople.org/elemental/elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24.src.rpm
--
You are receiving t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #29 from Antonio Trande ---
Add
ExcludeArch: %{power64}
until PPC builds are fixed.
--
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 componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #30 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
done.
--
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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #31 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #28)
> spec:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elemental/Elemental/master/redhat/
> elemental-release.spec
> srpm: https://rhl.fedorapeople.org/elemental/e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #32 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Should I just excludearch them as well? They do not have new enough compilers
to build Elemental. devtoolset-4 makes this possible, and it works in the copr
build. #fedora-devel says that the SCLs a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #33 from Antonio Trande ---
>Should I just excludearch them as well?
No.
I thought you wanted to compile on epel, too.
The review is almost done:
- Your are not using %license to pack the license files.
- You should use %doc or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #34 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I definitely do want to compile on EPEL, but, it appears without devtoolset-4
this will not be possible.
I'm not sure what you want me to do with:
> - Your are not using %license to pack the lic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #35 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Oh I see you want me do to:
mv %{_docdir}/Elemental %_pkgdocdir
and then replace the %{_datadir}/doc/Elemental with %_pkgdocdir
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #36 from Antonio Trande ---
%_pkgdocdir = %{_docdir}/%{name} = %{_datadir}/doc/elemental !=
%{_datadir}/doc/Elemental
:)
Use %license to tag the license files like:
%license COPYING.txt
or
%license LICENSE
or
%license COPYRIGHT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #37 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
I have this line: %license debian/copyright
Is that the wrong location somehow? rpmlint isn't complaining about it
obviously, so, i'm not sure offhand.
Or do you mean that you want: the other COP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #38 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
Ok, I believe I have addressed your concerns now.
--
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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #40 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
done.
--
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
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #39 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) from comment #38)
> Ok, I believe I have addressed your concerns now.
Not there. In this way:
%files common
%{_datadir}/elemental/*
%_pkgdocdir/
%license debian/copyri
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #41 from Antonio Trande ---
Please, post new links (rebuild the src-rpm from new SPEC file).
--
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 co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #42 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16729391
https://rhl.fedorapeople.org/elemental/elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24.src.rpm
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/elemental/Elemental/master/redha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #43 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #44 from Jon Ciesla ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/elemental
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-563959753e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ca5b05dc6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #47 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971
--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are o
53 matches
Mail list logo
