[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 |blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-11-04 22:01:00 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #34 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Added to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring#B. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- blosc-1.2.3-9.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
a) On Fedora 20, the packages are supposed to install their
docs to /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
That's not accurate. If a new package submitter asked where to find that in the
packaging guidelines, one could not answer that question.
Documentation files are supposed to be marked as %doc, and when using the %doc
macro, that one defaults to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
The guidelines don't explicitly request the files to be stored in that path.
They don't comment on the different path per sub-package either. And some
source tarballs install into a non-versioned /usr/share/doc/%{name} by default,
and packagers only sometimes change that. Sometimes they even turn a versioned
dir into a non-versioned one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #19)
a) On Fedora 20, the packages are supposed to install their
docs to /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
That's not accurate. If a new package submitter asked where to find that in
the packaging guidelines, one could not answer that question.
Documentation files are supposed to be marked as %doc, and when using the
%doc macro, that one defaults to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
Correct, this needs an update.
The guidelines don't explicitly request the files to be stored in that path.
They don't comment on the different path per sub-package either. And some
source tarballs install into a non-versioned /usr/share/doc/%{name} by
default, and packagers only sometimes change that. Sometimes they even turn
a versioned dir into a non-versioned one.
Michael, STOP THAT, please! Common sense and using brains have become rare
events on your side? I feel you have become one of those people, who seem to be
in need of laws and regulations for everything!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Don't shout. Also, your repeated personal attacks and choice of words leave much to be desired. :-( Please notice http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct I'm sorry your feeling is misleading you. You read too much into my comment. I've only pointed out that so far the packagers have been free to use a non-versioned docdir. There are examples in Fedora 19 and older. They are not the norm, because %doc defaults to be versioned. But they do exist, and the guidelines don't disallow that. Is this another review you would like to veto? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #22 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #21) Don't shout. Also, your repeated personal attacks and choice of words leave much to be desired. :-( Please notice http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Well, I am seriously pissed off by a series of postings from you, which don't leave me any other choice to use this tone and to consider further consequence. As this is all OT here, More on this in German and on PM. I'm sorry your feeling is misleading you. You read too much into my comment. I've only pointed out that so far the packagers have been free to use a non-versioned docdir. No, they have not been - These all were bugs. There are examples in Fedora 19 and older. Correct, there are broken packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #23 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Those packages are not broken. A non-versioned docdir allows for users setting bookmarks to the documentation, for example. That's really very helpful with large HTML trees and even PDFs (where the reader remembers the most recently viewed files and the current page number). Well, I am seriously pissed off by a series of postings from you, Not my fault. which don't leave me any other choice to use this tone and Keep trying. There's absolutely no reason to talk to me that way. to consider further consequence. Perhaps the Fedora CWG may be helpful in this case? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #24 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #23) to consider further consequence. Perhaps the Fedora CWG may be helpful in this case? Great now you are threatening me once more - Don't you realize how hostile and agressive you are? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC|rc040...@freenet.de | --- Comment #25 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- Get me outa here, I am unable to share a room with Mr. Schwendt. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #26 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- Great now you are threatening me once more Not once. Don't you realize how hostile and agressive you are? No, I don't. In this ticket I disagree with you about the docdirs, but that's no reason to attack me personally, and if you draw a connection to disagreements external to this ticket, that's your personal issue. I don't fight. I voice my opinion. It's you who would like to find a way to silence me. You've mentioned considering further consequence. Consulting the CWG for help and a neutral opinion is an idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #27 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com --- The above kind of reminds me the motivation I had to stay away from review requests/working on packages... (see BZ#852898) The release type is set to Debug instead of Release. Plus, the bench/ was compiled twice (once by cmake, once by a call to make). This should fix the flag issues. http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-9.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #28 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Seems to build properly everywhere: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087645 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087646 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087652 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6087654 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #29 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com --- Correct URL : http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-9.fc16.src.rpm Thank you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #30 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: blosc Short Description: A high performance compressor optimized for binary data Owners: tnorth zbyszek Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #5 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost with
this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the purpose of
blosc ?)
There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated
plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is
problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring
python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed
as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also
not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the
best option, with
/usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times.
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file in
%doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
I still had to use %exclude to avoid duplicates. Using %doc bench, for some
reason, also adds *.rst.
So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As
a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick
whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view.
New spec online:
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-4.fc19.src.rpm
(Is it ok to overwrite this SPEC file everytime? Old ones are still available
in the SRPMS packages at
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-?.fc19.src.rpm)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com ---
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared to
how the library is compiled.
There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated
plot-times.py script part of either of the two binary packages is
problematic. If it is moved into the main package, it would start requiring
python, and x86_64 versions would nod be co-installable. If is is installed
as part of the -devel package, again, -devel would require python, and also
not be coinstallable. I think that adding a -bench (or -test) package is the
best option, with
/usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times.
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
I still had to use %exclude to avoid duplicates. Using %doc bench, for some
reason, also adds *.rst.
So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As
a reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick
whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view.
New spec online:
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-4.fc19.src.rpm
(Is it ok to overwrite this SPEC file everytime? Old ones are still
available in the SRPMS packages at
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-?.fc19.src.rpm)
Yeah, I think that's common practice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #8 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make it.
Thanks.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through
%{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
F19, indeed! Thanks.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be
able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would
be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared
to how the library is compiled.
My bad, I had in mind the previous Makefile which was compiling directly
against the blosc code.
Now, it is too bad that blosc is compiled with %{?_smp_mflags}, because part of
the power of blosc is provided by these SSE optimization. (checking how much
would be interesting.)
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
Yes, done.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-5.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #8)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make
it. Thanks.
This is just a fallback for build systems with old rpm. That's why it
is defined with -%{version}, to retain historical behaviour on old systems,
but allowing to use the same %spec. It should be conditional, so that you
get the new behaviour when enabled by the system.
The sed is still wrong, it's backwards...
If plot-times is in %{_bindir}, then %{_pkgdocdir}/bench only contains one
file (bench.c), so maybe it's no longer necessary to have a separate directory,
and bench.c could be installed in %{_pkgdocdir} directly?
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #7)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #5)
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through
%{_pkgdocdir}.
Yes, but it looks like %{_pkgdocdir} still points to
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} even after %global _docdir_fmt %{name}.
Or I am doing something wrong here, I don't know ?
Are you building this under F20/F21 or F19? You get an unversioned
%_pkgdocdir only in F = 20.
F19, indeed! Thanks.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find
out
how to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be
able
to invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it
would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and
relevant to how one would use blosc.
This makes sense. Moreover, the -O2 flag will match the actual blosc
library
from the package.
On the other hand, the optimization brought by -O3 as well as SSE are lost
with this packaged blosc binary, right? (doesn't that somehow defeat the
purpose of blosc ?)
How the binary itself is compiled probably doesn't matter so much, compared
to how the library is compiled.
My bad, I had in mind the previous Makefile which was compiling directly
against the blosc code.
Now, it is too bad that blosc is compiled with %{?_smp_mflags}, because part
of the power of blosc is provided by these SSE optimization. (checking how
much would be interesting.)
Good idea. I tried to implement it in the new spec, which is probably not
perfect. The blosc-plot-times is a link pointing to the actual python file
in %doc. I guess this one should be in %{_datadir} instead ?
Maybe just install the script in %{_bindir}, just removing the extension?
Yes, done.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
Actually, blosc-plot-times is by itself noarch, so I think it's fine with
whatever python-matplotlib, so %{?_isa} can be removed.
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-5.fc19.src.rpm
cp -pr %{_pkgdocdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/%{name}-plot-times
This looks wrong.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #10 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9)
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #8)
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6)
Try this:
%{!?_pkgdocdir: %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}}
s/%{version}// ?
Doesn't work here, but %global _pkgdocdir %{_docdir}/%{name} seems to make
it. Thanks.
This is just a fallback for build systems with old rpm. That's why it
is defined with -%{version}, to retain historical behaviour on old systems,
but allowing to use the same %spec. It should be conditional, so that you
get the new behaviour when enabled by the system.
Ok, I was trying to have the same behaviour on F19, which wasn't right.
The sed is still wrong, it's backwards...
Fixed.
Also, blosc-plot-times requires python-matplotlib%{?_isa}. I thought that
requiring it would be ok, but rpmlint complains (explicit-lib-dependency). i
guess this can be ignored?
Actually, blosc-plot-times is by itself noarch, so I think it's fine with
whatever python-matplotlib, so %{?_isa} can be removed.
Done.
cp -pr %{_pkgdocdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_bindir}/%{name}-plot-times
This looks wrong.
Indeed, remains of the link. Fixed.
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for your patience.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
... the Requires should be more exact (for -devel)
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Still missing, I think.
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench 0775L
Should be 0755. I suppose that this is inherited from the environment, I have
umask 0002. Probably 'install' instead of cp would be better, since it sets the
permissions to u=rwx,go=rx.
Rpmlint (rest of output)
---
Checking: blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-devel-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-bench-1.2.3-6.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-1.2.3-6.fc19.src.rpm
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
The dependency is OK. python-matplotlib only provides
python-matplotlib = 1.3.0-1.fc20
python-matplotlib(x86-64) = 1.3.0-1.fc20
and the non-isa one is more adequate.
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
blosc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint blosc-devel blosc blosc-bench
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench 0775L
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
Can be ignored.
I think that except those two issues noted at the top, package is OK.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #12 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11)
... the Requires should be more exact (for -devel)
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Still missing, I think.
Fixed, thanks.
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/blosc-bench
0775L
Should be 0755. I suppose that this is inherited from the environment, I
have umask 0002. Probably 'install' instead of cp would be better, since it
sets the permissions to u=rwx,go=rx.
Right!
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.src.rpm
New rmplint output:
rpmlint -vv blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.src.rpm blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-devel-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm blosc-bench-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm
blosc-debuginfo-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm blosc.spec
blosc.src: I: checking
blosc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.x86_64: I: checking
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
blosc-bench.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-bench.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcpy - memory
blosc-bench.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-plot-times
blosc-bench.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blosc-bench
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
/home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec: I: checking-url
http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
Thanks everyone. I am a bit rusty, it's been a long time :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rc040...@freenet.de
--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Sorry, folks this package is broken:
a) On Fedora 20, the packages are supposed to install their docs to
/usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
This package has /usr/share/doc/%{name} hard-coded somewhere:
# rpm -qlp blosc-1.2.3-7.fc19.x86_64.rpm
...
/usr/share/doc/blosc
...
Please fix this.
b) This section from the *spec hard-codes -msse2:
...
%ifarch x86_64
cmake %{?_cmake_lib_suffix64} \
-DCMAKE_C_FLAGS:STRING=%{optflags} -msse2 \
...
Please remove this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #15 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
This seems to fix both issues (tested on f19 and f20):
--- blosc.spec 2013-10-21 14:34:52.0 -0400
+++ blosc.spec.new 2013-10-21 23:33:40.395646556 -0400
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
# Use the proper library path and SSE2 instruction on 64bits systems
%ifarch x86_64
cmake %{?_cmake_lib_suffix64} \
--DCMAKE_C_FLAGS:STRING=%{optflags} -msse2 \
+-DCMAKE_C_FLAGS:STRING=%{optflags} \
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix} \
-DBUILD_STATIC:BOOL=OFF \
-DTEST_INCLUDE_BENCH_SUITE:BOOL=OFF .
@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@
%check
make test VERBOSE=1
-%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
%install
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc.spec
http://tnorth.fedorapeople.org/rev/blosc-1.2.3-8.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 --- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Yeah, it looks correct now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #15)
This seems to fix both issues (tested on f19 and f20):
Yes, much better now!
However, checking *-8, I just noticed another issue:
* Compilation doesn't honor %optflags:
...
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/blosc-1.2.3/tests /usr/bin/cmake -E
cmake_link_script CMakeFiles/test_basics.dir/link.txt --verbose=1
/usr/lib/ccache/cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -grecord-gcc-switches -m32
-march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -O3 -DNDEBUG
CMakeFiles/test_basics.dir/test_basics.c.o -o test_basics
-L/builddir/build/BUILD/blosc-1.2.3/blosc -rdynamic ../blosc/libblosc.so.1.2.3
-lpthread -Wl,-rpath,/builddir/build/BUILD/blosc-1.2.3/blosc
...
Note: There is a -O3 overriding the -O2 from %optflags.
I am far from being a cmake specialist, but AFAICT, one fix to this would be
using %cmake instead of the cmake-%if-cascade:
%cmake \
-DBUILD_STATIC:BOOL=OFF \
-DTEST_INCLUDE_BENCH_SUITE:BOOL=OFF .
Finally, %_pkgdocdir meanwhile is available in all releases of Fedoras.
I.e. you plan to support EPEL you could also remove %{!?_pkgdocdir:...}.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #18 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #17)
I.e. you plan to support EPEL you could also remove %{!?_pkgdocdir:...}.
Sorry, typo. This was meant to be
I.e. unless you plan to support EPEL, you could also remove
%{!?_pkgdocdir:...}.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Björn besser82 Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1020096 (python-blosc) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020096 [Bug 1020096] Review Request: python-blosc - Python wrapper for the blosc high performance compressor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
(In reply to Thibault North from comment #2)
About that, why are the files duplicated in this case? I don't remember
having met this issue in the past.
Because %doc includes everything in %{_pkgdocdir} automatically.
BTW, the proper way to refer to %{docdir}/%{name} is through %{_pkgdocdir}.
I also tried this:
[...]
mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
cp -pr bench/plot-speeds.py* ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
cp -pr bench/*.c ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
[...]
%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
%files
%doc README.rst ANNOUNCE.rst RELEASE_NOTES.rst README_HEADER.rst
README_THREADED.rst RELEASING.rst
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so.*
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so
%{_includedir}/blosc.h
%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/plot-speeds.py*
%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/*.c
It is a bit ugly, but keeps the bench/ directory. But again, the main
package inherits from the bench/ folder.
So, I think that this is not OK.
I found two solutions which seem to work:
a) add %exclude %{_pkgdocdir}/bench in %files
b) remove unwanted files from bench/ in %build, and then simply add '%doc
bench'
in %files devel, without installing anything by hand.
Both of those solutions remove duplicates and preserve the /bench/ in path.
But I think that a different solution is actually better:
c) simply install a compiled version of 'bench'.
I think this is better because as a user, I don't want to have to find out how
to compile the .c file to run the benchmarks, I would prefer to be able to
invoke it directly. I have now run bench myself, and I think it would be
worthwhile to package, because the results are quite interesting, and relevant
to how one would use blosc.
There's a problem that making the bench binary and the associated plot-times.py
script part of either of the two binary packages is problematic. If it is moved
into the main package, it would start requiring python, and x86_64 versions
would nod be co-installable. If is is installed as part of the -devel package,
again, -devel would require python, and also not be coinstallable. I think that
adding a -bench (or -test) package is the best option, with
/usr/bin/blosc-bench and /usr/bin/blosc-plot-times.
The -devel package requires:
blosc = 1.2.3-2.fc20
libblosc.so.1.2.3()(64bit)
Those are duplicates, so
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
can be removed.
Shouldn't there be an explicit require, according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package ?
Otherwise, rpmlint complains.
You're right. But then the Requires should be more exact:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
So, whatever you decide wrt. the %files problem, please post a new .spec. As a
reviewer, I don't think I should impose my view here, and you should pick
whatever you think best from the maintainer point of view.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Because %doc includes everything in %{_pkgdocdir} automatically.
That's this one - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #2 from Thibault North thibault.no...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for the comments!
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
There's a typo in sed:
sed -i 's|BLOSC_VERSION_PATCH 6|BLOSC_VERSION_PATCH 6|' CMakeLists.txt
^ should be 3
Thanks, fixed.
I think the description is still awkward... Maybe something like this:
Blosc is a compression library designed to transmit data to the processor
cache
faster than the traditional non-compressed memory fetch. Compression ratios
are not very high, but the decompression is very fast. Blosc is meant not
only to reduce the size of large datasets on-disk or in-memory, but also to
accelerate
memory-bound computations.
Yes, this is better.
There's a problem with the -devel package's docs (under F20 at least): the
files are installed into /usr/share/doc/bench, and should be in
/usr/share/doc/blosc/bench... I'm not sure what's the best way. One approach:
---8
--- /home/zbyszek/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec~2013-10-16
21:52:48.0 -0400
+++ /home/zbyszek/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec 2013-10-17
16:45:58.895419994 -0400
@@ -55,10 +55,6 @@
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
-mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-cp -pr bench/plot-speeds.py* ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-cp -pr bench/*.c ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-
%clean
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
@@ -70,11 +66,13 @@
%doc README.rst ANNOUNCE.rst RELEASE_NOTES.rst README_HEADER.rst
README_THREADED.rst RELEASING.rst
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so.*
+%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
+
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so
%{_includedir}/blosc.h
-%{_docdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py*
-%{_docdir}/bench/*.c
+%doc bench/plot-speeds.py
+%doc bench/*.c
%changelog
---8
If has the disadvantage that /bench/ part of the path is gone, all files
are in /usr/share/doc/blosc, and also that the -devel package also has the
docs from the main package (the packages install fine because the files are
indentical). Maybe you can come up with something better.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs for more info.
About that, why are the files duplicated in this case? I don't remember having
met this issue in the past.
I also tried this:
[...]
mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
cp -pr bench/plot-speeds.py* ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
cp -pr bench/*.c ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench
[...]
%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
%files
%doc README.rst ANNOUNCE.rst RELEASE_NOTES.rst README_HEADER.rst
README_THREADED.rst RELEASING.rst
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so.*
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so
%{_includedir}/blosc.h
%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/plot-speeds.py*
%{_docdir}/%{name}/bench/*.c
It is a bit ugly, but keeps the bench/ directory. But again, the main package
inherits from the bench/ folder.
The -devel package requires:
blosc = 1.2.3-2.fc20
libblosc.so.1.2.3()(64bit)
Those are duplicates, so
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
can be removed.
Shouldn't there be an explicit require, according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
?
Otherwise, rpmlint complains.
%clean section can be removed.
Yes, thanks.
rpmlint output:
rpmlint -v SRPMS/blosc-1.2.3-3.fc19.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/blosc-1.2.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/blosc-devel-1.2.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/blosc-debuginfo-1.2.3-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm SPECS/blosc.spec
blosc.src: I: checking
blosc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.src: I: checking-url http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
blosc.x86_64: I: checking
blosc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets - data sets,
data-sets, databases
blosc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
blosc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://blosc.org (timeout 10 seconds)
/home/tnorth/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec: I: checking-url
http://blosc.org/sources/1.2.3/blosc-1.2.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds)
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1020088] Review Request: blosc - A high performance compressor optimized for binary data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020088
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl ---
There's a typo in sed:
sed -i 's|BLOSC_VERSION_PATCH 6|BLOSC_VERSION_PATCH 6|' CMakeLists.txt
^ should be 3
I think the description is still awkward... Maybe something like this:
Blosc is a compression library designed to transmit data to the processor cache
faster than the traditional non-compressed memory fetch. Compression ratios are
not very high, but the decompression is very fast. Blosc is meant not only to
reduce the size of large datasets on-disk or in-memory, but also to accelerate
memory-bound computations.
There's a problem with the -devel package's docs (under F20 at least): the
files are installed into /usr/share/doc/bench, and should be in
/usr/share/doc/blosc/bench... I'm not sure what's the best way. One approach:
---8
--- /home/zbyszek/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec~2013-10-16 21:52:48.0
-0400
+++ /home/zbyszek/rpmbuild/SPECS/blosc.spec 2013-10-17 16:45:58.895419994
-0400
@@ -55,10 +55,6 @@
make install DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
-mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-cp -pr bench/plot-speeds.py* ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-cp -pr bench/*.c ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/bench
-
%clean
rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}
@@ -70,11 +66,13 @@
%doc README.rst ANNOUNCE.rst RELEASE_NOTES.rst README_HEADER.rst
README_THREADED.rst RELEASING.rst
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so.*
+%global _docdir_fmt %{name}
+
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libblosc.so
%{_includedir}/blosc.h
-%{_docdir}/bench/plot-speeds.py*
-%{_docdir}/bench/*.c
+%doc bench/plot-speeds.py
+%doc bench/*.c
%changelog
---8
If has the disadvantage that /bench/ part of the path is gone, all files are
in /usr/share/doc/blosc, and also that the -devel package also has the docs
from the main package (the packages install fine because the files are
indentical). Maybe you can come up with something better.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs for more info.
The -devel package requires:
blosc = 1.2.3-2.fc20
libblosc.so.1.2.3()(64bit)
Those are duplicates, so
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
can be removed.
%clean section can be removed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
