[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-03-09 10:00:18 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-08c56a2194 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- exciting-10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-08c56a2194 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/exciting -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #20 from marcindulak --- Thanks! -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Mukundan Ragavan --- > > > > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > > in the spec URL. > > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/diff.txt > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > > > I think this happens when a SRPM created on EL6 is unpacked on a newer > Fedora by koji. > I don't see any version mismatch with `cmp`. > > > $ sha256sum exciting.boron-10.tar.gz dl/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz 8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc exciting.boron-10.tar.gz 8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc dl/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz cmp also produces nothing as you mentioned. ---> This is done. ---> Licensing - done! (see c#18) ---> spec file diffs - I do not see any problems. Koji builds look good to me. I have nothing else to complain about. Package APPROVED. -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #18 from Mukundan Ragavan --- (libs. > > > > Generic: > > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > > Guidelines. > > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with > > incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)", > > "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have > > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > > /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck. > > txt > > > > ---> > > > > Licenses: I think we should trust exciting about the license. It is a common > case > for scientific codes that they include files licensed under various > GPL-compatible > licenses, and as far as I know GPL eats them all. See discussion here > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893 > > My bad! This is my copy-pasting the unupdated version of my review file. I went through the files listed in licensecheck (~80% of files) and found no problems. I have no issues with this. -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #17 from marcindulak ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #14)
> Detailed review below.
>
>
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>
> ---> Installs fine.
>
> $ rpm -qa exciting*
> exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64
> exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64
> exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64
> exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch
> exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64
>
>
> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
> /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/diff.txt
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
>
I think this happens when a SRPM created on EL6 is unpacked on a newer Fedora
by koji.
I don't see any version mismatch with `cmp`.
>
> ---> Can you please check this?
>
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
> incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)",
> "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have
> unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>
> /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck.
> txt
>
> --->
>
Licenses: I think we should trust exciting about the license. It is a common
case
for scientific codes that they include files licensed under various
GPL-compatible
licenses, and as far as I know GPL eats them all. See discussion here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893
>
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>
> ---> Present in -common.
>
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d
>
> ---> /etc/profile.d is definitely owned!
/etc/profile.d is owned by setup. I'm not sure about the rules whether packages
as setup should be explicitly in requires, but I added it anyway.
>
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> Note: %defattr present but not needed
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
> license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
> license(s) for the package is included in %license.
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
> beginning of %install.
> [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or t
[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #16 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- nonamedotc's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12947738 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #15 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Started a koji scratch build on rawhide - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12947738 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan ---
Detailed review below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
---> Installs fine.
$ rpm -qa exciting*
exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64
exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch
exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
---> Can you please check this?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck.txt
--->
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
---> Present in -common.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d
---> /etc/profile.d is definitely owned!
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan --- One quick comment - You can remove %defattr in the 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 component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan --- marcin - I am very sorry about this delay. I will post a review in the next two days. -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Marcin, I will formally taKe over this package review. -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #10 from marcindulak --- New upstream release. Bundling of lbfgsb reintroduced taking into account the recent changes in Fedora policy. Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01/exciting-10-1.el6.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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12225904 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12225273 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-10-1.el6.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12224498 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- marcindulak's scratch build of exciting-7-1.el7.centos.src.rpm for epel7 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11750266 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #4 from marcindulak --- Update: Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01.new/exciting.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/exciting/r01.new/exciting-7-1.fc21.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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Bug 1064657 depends on bug 1192606, which changed state. Bug 1192606 Summary: libxc needs rebuilding against gfortran 5.0.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192606 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1192606 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192606 [Bug 1192606] libxc needs rebuilding against gfortran 5.0.0 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 Bug 1064657 depends on bug 1104289, which changed state. Bug 1104289 Summary: Review Request: FoXlibf - A Fortran XML Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 marcindulak changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1104289 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289 [Bug 1104289] Review Request: FoX - A Fortran XML Library -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #3 from marcindulak --- https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/400 -- 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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657
--- Comment #2 from marcindulak ---
Actually i have prepared an unbundled version of exciting
BLAS, LAPACK, FFTW, LIBXC, ERF, ARPACK, LBFGSB bundling is removed,
with an exception of FoX.
I'm communicating with exciting developers about the FoX
(http://exciting-code.org/forum/t-779809/non-standard-format-pretty-print-in-fox)
- it looks i have have to ask for bundling exception due to this commit that
makes exciting crash with upstream FoX:
https://github.com/sr76/exciting/commit/f2f97a47d147b2894701a1ac75174cf524b5eb85
Moreover i removed bundling of
http://www.ece.northwestern.edu/~nocedal/lbfgsb.html in a hacky way: by linking
to %{python_sitearch}/scipy/optimize/_lbfgsb.so (well, scipy also bundles
this).
I will update the spec when receive the final answer about FoX from exciting
developers.
--
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 1064657] Review Request: exciting - FP-LAPW Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Hi marcin, I am interested in reviewing this package but it might be take me sometime to do that. If you do not have "time-related" objections, I can take this package for review. -- 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
