subject:"\[Bug 1816301\] Review Request\: openfoam \- computational fluid dynamics"

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-05-07 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #51 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
I'll try to find some time for this next week.
The release index I can manage reasonably easily - provided that I have a
bumped upstream patch version to start from, should be possible without
colliding with previous builds.
Will also adjust the spec file to "openfoam.spec" and leave the others
(openfoam2306, openfoam2212 etc) as maintenance versions (as per openSUSE).
The openfoam packages are designed to permit installation of a number of
different release/maintenance versions, which is why we have "openfoam" as the
meta package and "openfoam2312" as the concrete package etc. There are a number
of cases where the user does actually want to have multiple versions installed
- primarily for back-to-back comparisons, possible regression tests,
transitioning coding between versions etc.


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c51
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-30 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #50 from Benson Muite  ---
>> a) In the spec file, can you change
>> Prefix: /usr/lib/openfoam
>> to
>> Prefix: %{_libdir}/openfoam

> OK to leave as is?
> With the %{_libdir} macro it would expand to /usr/lib64 on openSUSE (for 
> example), since their site CONFIG_SITE has %{_lib} as lib64 > for x86_64.
> I'd prefer to have a fixed/known install location, and also reuse as much as 
> of the spec as possible for both targets.

Probably adding an if statement is preferable if the behavior on OpenSUSE
should differ. Otherwise an
exemption is needed:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_multilib_exempt_locations

>> b) Please also change
>> Release:240429%{?dist}
>> to
>> Release:1%{?dist}
>> 
>> This is used to indicate changes in the spec file, for example due to
>> rebuilds or changes
>> to other options when the sources are not changed.  It is independent of the
>> actual release version of the sources.

> Interesting. On previous copr builds it seems to ignore the auto increment 
> entirely (but my memory might be foggy), which is why I
> forced to have the build date there too.
> I can revert back without problem. Interesting, the openSUSE builds
> prefer "0" instead of "1" for their Release, which is where they slap
> in the special handling. Would "0%{?dist}" also work for Fedora, or
> just "1%{?dist}" ?

Fedora starts at 1. This is incremented for very spec file change without a
corresponding source version change.
It is possible to use the %autorelease macro to manage this.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/

> With the "1%{?dist}" (or "0%{?dist}") I guess that the previously built 
> versions (with the date as release stamp) will mask out the
> revised one. I'll need to see how to fix that I guess.

Can bump the epoch if there are many people using the copr build.  You could
also create a new copr repo, and delete both
copr repos once the package is accepted.

>> c) In the files listing, please change
>> 
>> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/COPYING
>> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/README.md
>> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/ThirdParty/README

> DONE

Thanks.

>> d) Is there any way to get wmake to mostly use Fedora specific build flags?

> We have provision for passing in extra stuff via the
> FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS
> environment variables. Just not entirely sure should then be in there
> for the spec file...

> Something like this?
> #-
> %build

> # Mimic set_build_flags macro, but with wmake names
> %if 0%{?fedora}%{?rhel}
> FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS:-%{?build_cflags}}"
> FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS:-%{?build_cxxflags}}"
> FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS:-%{?build_ldflags}}"
> export FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS
> %endif

This seems better.

e) Please name the latest release version openfoam without anything additional
see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c50
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-30 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #49 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
> a) In the spec file, can you change
> Prefix: /usr/lib/openfoam
> to
> Prefix: %{_libdir}/openfoam

OK to leave as is?
With the %{_libdir} macro it would expand to /usr/lib64 on openSUSE (for
example), since their site CONFIG_SITE has %{_lib} as lib64 for x86_64.
I'd prefer to have a fixed/known install location, and also reuse as much as of
the spec as possible for both targets.

> b) Please also change
> Release:240429%{?dist}
> to
> Release:1%{?dist}
> 
> This is used to indicate changes in the spec file, for example due to
> rebuilds or changes
> to other options when the sources are not changed.  It is independent of the
> actual release version of the sources.

Interesting. On previous copr builds it seems to ignore the auto increment
entirely (but my memory might be foggy), which is why I forced to have the
build date there too.
I can revert back without problem. Interesting, the openSUSE builds
prefer "0" instead of "1" for their Release, which is where they slap
in the special handling. Would "0%{?dist}" also work for Fedora, or
just "1%{?dist}" ?

With the "1%{?dist}" (or "0%{?dist}") I guess that the previously built
versions (with the date as release stamp) will mask out the revised one. I'll
need to see how to fix that I guess.

> c) In the files listing, please change
> 
> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/COPYING
> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/README.md
> %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/ThirdParty/README

DONE

> d) Is there any way to get wmake to mostly use Fedora specific build flags?

We have provision for passing in extra stuff via the
FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS
environment variables. Just not entirely sure should then be in there
for the spec file...

Something like this?
#-
%build

# Mimic set_build_flags macro, but with wmake names
%if 0%{?fedora}%{?rhel}
FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS:-%{?build_cflags}}"
FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS:-%{?build_cxxflags}}"
FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS="${FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS:-%{?build_ldflags}}"
export FOAM_EXTRA_CFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_CXXFLAGS FOAM_EXTRA_LDFLAGS
%endif


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c49
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #48 from Benson Muite  ---
Thanks for the updates. 

a) In the spec file, can you change
Prefix: /usr/lib/openfoam
to
Prefix: %{_libdir}/openfoam

See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/

b) Please also change
Release:240429%{?dist}
to
Release:1%{?dist}

This is used to indicate changes in the spec file, for example due to rebuilds
or changes
to other options when the sources are not changed.  It is independent of the
actual
release version of the sources.

c) In the files listing, please change

%{prefix}/%{projectDir}/COPYING
%{prefix}/%{projectDir}/README.md
%{prefix}/%{projectDir}/ThirdParty/README

to

%license %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/COPYING
%doc %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/README.md
%doc %{prefix}/%{projectDir}/ThirdParty/README

so that appropriate metainformation is added to the RPM package.

d) Is there any way to get wmake to mostly use Fedora specific build flags? See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/#_macros_providing_compiler_and_linker_flags


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c48
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #47 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Thanks for the review.

I've made the suggested changes to the spec file - I do hope that I got most of
them.

Last updated build:
spec:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-39-x86_64/07388032-openfoam2312/openfoam2312.spec
srpm:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-39-x86_64/07388032-openfoam2312/openfoam2312-2312.240220-240429.fc39.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c47
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-28 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #44 from Benson Muite  ---
Fedora does support modules if you wish to support multiple packages.  Once
the first package is reviewed, the rest should  be easier.


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c44
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-28 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #43 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/.build-
  id/9d/ec59265760f725a4bd76835838a211e1d424bf
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using
  the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
  converting it to SPDX.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Package is not relocatable.
  Note: Package has a "Prefix:" tag
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_relocatable_packages


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
 Note: Sources not installed
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU
 General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
 Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No
 copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or GNU General Public
 License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright*
 GNU General Public License", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or GNU
 General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Creative
 Commons Attribution 3.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF
 postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
 later and/or Public domain". 15374 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fedora/temp/1816301-openfoam2312/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openmpi, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoam2312, /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoam2312/wmake,
 /usr/lib/openfoam
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-28 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #42 from Benson Muite  ---
[fedora-review-service-build]


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c42
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #41 from Benson Muite  ---
Initial comments:
a) License should use SPDX identifier, probably GPL-3.0-or-later is
appropriate:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/spdx/
b) Download URL should follow format in:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_sourceforge_net
Might consider using GitLab format and download from
https://develop.openfoam.com rather than from SourceForge
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c41
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #40 from Benson Muite  ---
rpm files no longer available.
spec:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-39-x86_64/07336038-openfoam2312/openfoam2312.spec
srpm:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-39-x86_64/07336038-openfoam2312/openfoam2312-2312.240220-240422.fc39.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c40
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-04-02 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #39 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #38)
> Is it possible to update to latest release of OpenFOAM, 2312?

Not sure if these are good enough, or if we need something else. BTW: thanks
for taking this up!

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/centos-stream-8-x86_64/06780146-openfoam2312/openfoam2312.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/centos-stream-8-x86_64/06780146-openfoam2312/openfoam2312-2312.1-231221.el8.src.rpm
Description: herOpenFOAM has an extensive range of features to solve complex
fluid flows involving chemical reactions, turbulence and heat
transfer, solid dynamics and electromagnetics
Fedora Account System Username: openfoam


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c39
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-03-25 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #38 from Benson Muite  ---
Is it possible to update to latest release of OpenFOAM, 2312?


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c38
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-03-18 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #37 from Benson Muite  ---
Cannot sponsor, but happy to 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c37
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-03-17 Thread bugzilla



Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  has canceled Package Review
's request for Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
's needinfo:
Bug 1816301: Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #36 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Mark, I'm a bit busy at the moment and going away on leave too, so I won't be
able to look at this for at least two months. So, I'm going to unassign this so
that others may take it on. I'll check back when I have time and if it hasn't
moved by then, I'll take it up again and continue. Sorry for that all the wait.

Cheers,
Ankur
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2024-03-17 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai |
   |l.com)  |
 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW



--- Comment #36 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Mark, I'm a bit busy at the moment and going away on leave too, so I won't be
able to look at this for at least two months. So, I'm going to unassign this so
that others may take it on. I'll check back when I have time and if it hasn't
moved by then, I'll take it up again and continue. Sorry for that all the wait.

Cheers,
Ankur


-- 
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=1816301

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201816301%23c36
--
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-03-03 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #34 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5590469
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1816301-openfoam/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05590469-openfoam2212/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-03-03 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #33 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1947793
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1947793=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5572620 to 5590469


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-03-03 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #32 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Made changes to compile with gcc-13. Tested locally, and retested with
fedora-37. So another attempt...

spec:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-37-x86_64/05579789-openfoam2212/openfoam2212.spec
srpm:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-37-x86_64/05579789-openfoam2212/openfoam2212-2212.230110-230228.fc37.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-02-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://www.openfoam.com



--- Comment #31 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5572620
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1816301-openfoam/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05572620-openfoam2212/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.


-- 
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=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-02-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #30 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
see if these work

Updated Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-37-x86_64/05164428-openfoam2212/openfoam2212.spec
Updated SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-37-x86_64/05164428-openfoam2212/openfoam2212-2212.1-221221.fc37.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-02-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #29 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Ah, could you put a link to the updated spec/srpm please? I use `fedora-review`
for the first round, and it picks the spec/srpm from the latest comment in the
bug here.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-02-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #28 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Thanks for the heads-up on this. I've opened a corresponding issue
(https://develop.openfoam.com/Development/openfoam/-/issues/2714) for more
follow ups.

Do you need a newer spec file? I see from the log that you are building v2006 -
the last release was v2212 (Dec 2022).
[Hard to believe that it's been that long already]


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-02-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #27 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Hi Mark,

The build fails for rawhide related to a GCC change from the looks of it:

```
primitives/strings/word/word.C:180:32: error: 'uintptr_t' was not declared in
this scope
  180 | buf << "0x" << std::hex << uintptr_t(ptr);
  |^
primitives/strings/word/word.C:33:1: note: 'uintptr_t' is defined in header
''; did you forget to '#include '?
   32 | #include 
  +++ |+#include 
   33 | 
make: ***
[/builddir/build/BUILD/OpenFOAM-v2006/wmake/rules/General/transform:35:
/builddir/build/BUILD/OpenFOAM-v2006/build/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/src/OpenFOAM/primitives/strings/word/word.o]
Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
Done logging to 'log.build'
+ :
+ '[' -f log.build ']'
++ cat log.build
++ sed -ne 's/.*bin *= *\([0-9][0-9]*\).*/\1/p;'
++ sed -ne '$p'
+ bins=
++ cat log.build
++ sed -ne 's/.*lib *= *\([0-9][0-9]*\).*/\1/p;'
++ sed -ne '$p'
+ libs=
+ '[' 0 = 0 ']'

```

Should be an easy fix (but there may be more places where these tiny tweaks are
required):

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/porting_to.html

I'll do another round of review once it builds.

Cheers,
Ankur


-- 
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=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2023-01-09 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #26 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Thanks, I'll do a round of review this week.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2022-09-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #25 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Updated Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-36-x86_64/04562101-openfoam2006/openfoam2006.spec
Updated SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-36-x86_64/04562101-openfoam2006/openfoam2006-2006.220610-220624.fc36.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2022-09-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai |
   |l.com)  |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2022-09-12 Thread bugzilla



Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  has canceled Package Review
's request for Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
's needinfo:
Bug 1816301: Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2021-09-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #23 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
That sounds good, Mark. Please submit the update spec/srpm whenever you are
ready and we can continue the review.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2021-09-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #22 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Was prompted by the automatic review. I am still interested in submitting the
package. In the meantime the spec file has been massively reworked to have a
constant name, include all meta-packages, slots in properly with the newer
Fedora mpi-lib structure etc.

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2021-09-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

mark.ole...@esi-group.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai |needinfo-
   |l.com)  |




-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

needinfo denied: [Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2021-09-10 Thread bugzilla



Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

mark.ole...@esi-group.com has denied Package Review
's request for Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
's needinfo:
Bug 1816301: Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-09-09 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #20 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Hi Dave,

(In reply to Dave Love from comment #19)
> I'll comment as I'd previously packaged openfoam and started on making it
> comply with Fedora-isms.
> 
> The approach of putting it in its own tree (under %_libdir) is appropriate,
> and it isn't a special case in that respect, but I can't see where it
> actually goes now -- %prefix doesn't seem to be defined.

An earlier comment stated that %prefix should not be defined (some policy).
I had originally tried to make them relocatable, but that runs counter to what
we now have.

> I would expect the
> source under /usr/src, but I don't know if there's policy on that.

Generally true, but the structure of OpenFOAM expects its source under the
project-directory.
If we put it elsewhere, we would need to patch OpenFOAM like mad and do lots of
tests to see that we haven't broken anything.
For what it's worth, I've at least split off into proper sub-packages to avoid
installing sources unless a '-devel' package is selected.

> However, the packaging isn't at all right yet.  I haven't checked in detail,
> but I noticed: Fedora doesn't allow conditionals for other distributions
> (which I think is unfortunate),

Some sed'ing will work there, but it does seem a bit unfortunate.

> you need serial and openblas and mpich
> packages (unless mpich won't work for some reason),

Doing a proper multibuild (serial and various MPI flavours) is still
work-in-progress. I have a proof of concept for adding in additional MPI layers

https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:openfoam/openfoam2006mpi

but still haven't worked out a good way to manage the resulting configurations.
If we actually need to get multi-build working for this to be a Fedora package,
I fear that we will never get finished.

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-09-09 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Dave Love  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dave.l...@manchester.ac.uk



--- Comment #19 from Dave Love  ---
I'll comment as I'd previously packaged openfoam and started on making it
comply with Fedora-isms.

The approach of putting it in its own tree (under %_libdir) is appropriate, and
it isn't a special case in that respect, but I can't see where it actually goes
now -- %prefix doesn't seem to be defined.  I would expect the source under
/usr/src, but I don't know if there's policy on that.

However, the packaging isn't at all right yet.  I haven't checked in detail,
but I noticed: Fedora doesn't allow conditionals for other distributions (which
I think is unfortunate), you need serial and openblas and mpich packages
(unless mpich won't work for some reason), I don't understand the bit about
CGAL missing in f32.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-09-07 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #18 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Anything still missing for this to go ahead? The most current set of srpm and
specs are listed under

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-33-x86_64/01646651-openfoam2006/openfoam2006-200727-200904.fc33.src.rpm
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/openfoam/openfoam/fedora-33-x86_64/01646651-openfoam2006/openfoam2006.spec

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-05-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #17 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Sorry about taking longer to get back to you, caught up in other build issues.

(In reply to david08741 from comment #16)
> Why would put them in /usr/lib/openfoam, rather then in /usr/lib/?
> That would be much nicer, imho, as if you only have one openfoam, it is not
> unnecessarily one level deeper.

There are a few issues with putting everything into /usr/bin and /usr/lib
directly.
We have a forest of around 160 libraries and another 300 binaries that most
people don't appreciate having dumped into regular locations
(cf, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918112)

Another vital thing is that we want to support installation of different
versions at the same time. This is fairly common in an engineering environment.
Someone might need to use openfoam1812 until their current vehicle goes into
production, but use openfoam1912 for newer projects. Or just as importantly,
might wish to verify how some particular result may be change between versions.

> Besides that, you MUST not install in /usr/lib. Header files need to go to
> %{_includedir}/openfoamVER, libs go to %{_libdir}/openfoamVER etc.
> See [1] for the specific directories.

This doesn't work very well at all with OpenFOAM. For good or bad, we have a
large number of headers and templated code spread across many directories. The
homegrown wmake (wrapped make) system creates a web of symlinks for the
headers, templates. If we start relocating these out of the source context, we
need to rewrite a substantial amount of the wmake system to accommodate this
and introduce loads of problems.

> If you want to put them in openfoam/openfoamVER/ rather then directly
> openfoamVER, then there are two options, create a package
> openfoam-filesystyem that owns the shared openfoam/ directories.
> The other one is co-owning, as you mentioned. See [2] for more on directory
> ownership.

An openfoam-filesystem owner package sounds OK. But would prefer to get most of
the current package on its way first. Otherwise I fear that we will near leave
the starting blocks.

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-05-05 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #16 from david08...@gmail.com ---
Why would put them in /usr/lib/openfoam, rather then in /usr/lib/?
That would be much nicer, imho, as if you only have one openfoam, it is not
unnecessarily one level deeper.

Besides that, you MUST not install in /usr/lib. Header files need to go to
%{_includedir}/openfoamVER, libs go to %{_libdir}/openfoamVER etc.
See [1] for the specific directories.

If you want to put them in openfoam/openfoamVER/ rather then directly
openfoamVER, then there are two options, create a package openfoam-filesystyem
that owns the shared openfoam/ directories.
The other one is co-owning, as you mentioned. See [2] for more on directory
ownership.

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/RPMMacros/
[2]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-27 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #15 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
A quick question for understanding packaging:

If I now package under /usr/lib/openfoam/PKG instead of tossing things into
/opt/PKG, rpmlint complains if I do not include /usr/lib/openfoam in the %files
list.

But if I package openfoamVER1 as /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoamVER1 and 
openfoamVER2 as /usr/lib/openfoam/openfoamVER2, who is supposed to "own" the
directory?
Both, neither?

In a non-RPM world I would think that the last one out should try to remove the
directory if possible, but that sounds like a bad hack. Or does one simply
state that /usr/lib/openfoam belongs to each package and just rely on the fact
that a rmdir of a non-empty directory should fail?

Thanks,
/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-16 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #14 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
The nest example is very nice. I've been struggling to find a definitive guide
of what is actually allowed in a spec file. The rpm.org has things, but seems
to be out of date.

Will get back when I have something to re-review.

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-16 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
(In reply to david08741 from comment #12)
> (In reply to mark.olesen from comment #11)
> > Currently rebuilding with the various suggested changes, with
> > /usr/lib/openfoam for the common root (instead of /opt).
> 
> I cannot find the relevent guidelines right now, but it would be better if
> you would put header files in /usr/include/openfoam.
> Also, you should probably use %{_libdir} rather then hard-coding /usr/lib/
> so that /usr/lib64 is used on 64bit systems.
> Another reason is
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

This covers it:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_filesystem_layout

We adhere quite strictly to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. So
%{_includedir} is /usr/include, and so on.

> 
> > I would still ideally like to have some more granularity in subpackages,
> > similar to my current section of .deb files.
> > However, I'm not sure if the interdependencies can be properly described in
> > a single .spec file.
> 
> This is no issue. See e.g.
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nest/blob/master/f/nest.spec which does
> this.

+1 you can make lots of such dependencies in the spec without any trouble.

> 
> > 
> > The subpackages
> > - myPackage-develop : source code headers and project-specific build 
> > scripts.
> 
> Probably should be called myPackage-devel

+1

The relevant guideline is here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-16 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #12 from david08...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to mark.olesen from comment #11)
> Currently rebuilding with the various suggested changes, with
> /usr/lib/openfoam for the common root (instead of /opt).

I cannot find the relevent guidelines right now, but it would be better if you
would put header files in /usr/include/openfoam.
Also, you should probably use %{_libdir} rather then hard-coding /usr/lib/ so
that /usr/lib64 is used on 64bit systems.
Another reason is
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

> I would still ideally like to have some more granularity in subpackages,
> similar to my current section of .deb files.
> However, I'm not sure if the interdependencies can be properly described in
> a single .spec file.

This is no issue. See e.g.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nest/blob/master/f/nest.spec which does
this.

> 
> The subpackages
> - myPackage-develop : source code headers and project-specific build scripts.

Probably should be called myPackage-devel


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-16 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #11 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
Currently rebuilding with the various suggested changes, with /usr/lib/openfoam
for the common root (instead of /opt).

I would still ideally like to have some more granularity in subpackages,
similar to my current section of .deb files.
However, I'm not sure if the interdependencies can be properly described in a
single .spec file.

The subpackages
- myPackage-develop : source code headers and project-specific build scripts.
- myPackage-tools : binaries for project-specific build tools.
- myPackage-common : version information and share files
- myPackage-examples : tutorials

The dependencies:

myPackage
- Requires: myPackage-common
- Suggests: myPackage-examples

myPackage-develop
- Requires: myPackage
- Requires: myPackage-tools

myPackage-common
- Requires: n/a

myPackage-examples
- Requires: n/a


Is it possible to describe these interdependencies in a spec format?

/mark


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #10 from david08...@gmail.com ---
I agree, modules is probably the best way.
That way back-to-back comparisons can use the same script, just different
module load before.

There is a documentation for MPI, which includes how to setup module files:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MPI

Some parts might be useful


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
The most convenient + cleanest way to enable multiple versions to be installed
on a system in parallel would probably be environment modules:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/EnvironmentModules/

That's how we include MPI based builds for tools. Would you take a look and see
what you think?

This is a fairly standard MPI build where an environment module is defined for
nest-mpich and nest-openmpi. (Here, they're all built in the same spec file
since they're part of the same package)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nest/blob/master/f/nest.spec


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-04-10 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
(In reply to mark.olesen from comment #7)
> (In reply to david08741 from comment #3)
> 
> Nice to get the reviews - it shows that people care!
> 
> > Not a full review, but some comments:
> > 
> > Group: is deprecated, please remove
> 
> OK for RedHat, probably leave for SuSE.

If you intend to use the same spec, you'll have to resort to using
conditionals:
http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-specref-conditionals.html

The Fedora conditionals are listed here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/#_conditionals

I do not know what the conditionals for SuSE are, so you'll have to refer to
their documentation. 

> 
> > License should be: GPLv3+
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> 
> Interesting, any idea why are they not using or accepting
> https://spdx.org/licenses/?
> Thought this would be "standard".

The Red Hat/Fedora legal team oversees the licensing, so we stick to what they
suggest :)

> 
> > Name should probably not include the version:
> > Name:   openfoam
> > 
> > I am not sure whether this is a MUST, but the release should start at 1 and
> > be bumped whenever you change the spec, without a new release:
> 
> These are both open to discussion and suggestion about how best to solve.
> OpenFOAM releases on a 6-month cycle in Jun and Dec, with version (API)
> denoted as YYMM (eg, 1906, 1912).
> 
> Since the API and the internal models most certainly change between these
> releases, it is fairly standard practice to have multiple versions installed
> or installable on the system. There are various reasons that this is
> desirable:
> 
> - allows testing, porting of user models to the updated framework
> - allows back-to-back comparison of simulation results, validation cases etc.
> - avoids automatic upgrades of major versions. For some industries it is
> normal to continue with a particular major version for the development
> lifetime of a product (eg, a vehicle).
> 
> The best way that I came up with was to have numbered packages (eg,
> openfoam1912, openfoam1906, etc) and use a top-level "openfoam" meta-package
> to define what is the most current release. I guess it could be comparable
> to having Qt4, Qt5, kde4, kde5, etc, except that the release numbers update
> every 6 months.
> 
> On copr, I'm just now experimenting with using the bugfix (patch) value for
> the version. The patch value follows a YYMMDD value. This means that the
> current spec would then have
> 
> Name: openfoam1912
> Version: 200316# <- 2020-03-16
> 
> The release could than have the usual increment I guess?

This is OK. No problem here as long as the various openfoam packages don't
conflict with each other.

> 
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-) isn't needed, please remove
> OK
> 
> > I don't think prefix should be set; it is certainly not allowed to use /opt
> 
> This was also something that was discussed off-line (Fedora and Debian).
> Need to have isolated, version-specific directories, but using an
> "alternatives" framework does not appear to be a good fit.
> We have approximately 300 executables and 160 libraries to deal with. I
> can't imagine fitting them all into alternatives. Besides which, the choice
> of which OpenFOAM version to use should be a user choice, not a systems
> choice.
> 
> Did look at trying to drop everything into /usr/lib/, or even install as
> multi-arch, but without proper guidance decided on /opt for the moment.
> 
> I am most certainly open to suggestions.

As noted, /opt certainly cannot be used. The best solution here depends on the
software. If it's only the binaries we need to worry about, they can simply be
suffixed with the version. This also clearly tells the user what version they
are using. This is how mpi variants for packages are built, for example.
Libraries are much trickier, especially if they use the same names between
variants. Are the soname versions different at least? Otherwise even using /opt
will only work if the LD_LIBRARY_PATH is updated each time to give the correct
version preference, right?

> 
> > Buildroot should not be set:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
> 
> OK, might have been working from some older docs.
> 
> > '%package -n %{name}-examples' -> '%package examples'
> 
> Nice, much cleaner.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-24 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #7 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
(In reply to david08741 from comment #3)

Nice to get the reviews - it shows that people care!

> Not a full review, but some comments:
> 
> Group: is deprecated, please remove

OK for RedHat, probably leave for SuSE.

> License should be: GPLv3+
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

Interesting, any idea why are they not using or accepting
https://spdx.org/licenses/?
Thought this would be "standard".

> Name should probably not include the version:
> Name:   openfoam
> 
> I am not sure whether this is a MUST, but the release should start at 1 and
> be bumped whenever you change the spec, without a new release:

These are both open to discussion and suggestion about how best to solve.
OpenFOAM releases on a 6-month cycle in Jun and Dec, with version (API) denoted
as YYMM (eg, 1906, 1912).

Since the API and the internal models most certainly change between these
releases, it is fairly standard practice to have multiple versions installed or
installable on the system. There are various reasons that this is desirable:

- allows testing, porting of user models to the updated framework
- allows back-to-back comparison of simulation results, validation cases etc.
- avoids automatic upgrades of major versions. For some industries it is normal
to continue with a particular major version for the development lifetime of a
product (eg, a vehicle).

The best way that I came up with was to have numbered packages (eg,
openfoam1912, openfoam1906, etc) and use a top-level "openfoam" meta-package to
define what is the most current release. I guess it could be comparable to
having Qt4, Qt5, kde4, kde5, etc, except that the release numbers update every
6 months.

On copr, I'm just now experimenting with using the bugfix (patch) value for the
version. The patch value follows a YYMMDD value. This means that the current
spec would then have

Name: openfoam1912
Version: 200316# <- 2020-03-16

The release could than have the usual increment I guess?

> %defattr(-,root,root,-) isn't needed, please remove
OK

> I don't think prefix should be set; it is certainly not allowed to use /opt

This was also something that was discussed off-line (Fedora and Debian).
Need to have isolated, version-specific directories, but using an
"alternatives" framework does not appear to be a good fit.
We have approximately 300 executables and 160 libraries to deal with. I can't
imagine fitting them all into alternatives. Besides which, the choice of which
OpenFOAM version to use should be a user choice, not a systems choice.

Did look at trying to drop everything into /usr/lib/, or even install as
multi-arch, but without proper guidance decided on /opt for the moment.

I am most certainly open to suggestions.

> Buildroot should not be set:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

OK, might have been working from some older docs.

> '%package -n %{name}-examples' -> '%package examples'

Nice, much cleaner.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-24 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite  ---
It should probably build in Copr with current SPEC file if more architecture
boxes are checked. Aim is that most users should be able to run the software -
portable optimized performance from the RPM is challenging.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-24 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #5 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
The upstream package is built regularly on ARM64 (with Clang, alternatively
with Gcc) - we keep regular contact with ARM people as well.
Haven't had access to build with ARM-v7 recently, but it posed no issues a few
years back. However, this architecture is not of particular interest any more
(performance).

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-23 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org



--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite  ---
Can you check it builds on more than x86, in particular ARM-hfp and AArch64,
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-23 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

david08...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||david08...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from david08...@gmail.com ---
Not a full review, but some comments:

Group: is deprecated, please remove

License should be: GPLv3+
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

Name should probably not include the version:
Name:   openfoam

I am not sure whether this is a MUST, but the release should start at 1 and be
bumped whenever you change the spec, without a new release:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning

%defattr(-,root,root,-) isn't needed, please remove
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions

I don't think prefix should be set; it is certainly not allowed to use /opt

Buildroot should not be set:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

'%package -n %{name}-examples' -> '%package examples'

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-23 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Hi Mark,

I'll help review this, and I can sponsor you when it's ready too.

Cheers,
Ankur

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1816301] Review Request: openfoam - computational fluid dynamics

2020-03-23 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816301



--- Comment #1 from mark.ole...@esi-group.com ---
FE-NEEDSPONSOR

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

51 matches

Mail list logo